Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 36-7-3-11 (2026)
Repealed
✓ current as of May 2026
[Pre-Local Government Recodification Citations: 18-5-10-43; 18-5-10-50 part.]
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.309, SEC.22. Amended by P.L.220-1986, SEC.6. Repealed by P.L.126-2011, SEC.68.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 2000–2007 · leading case: William Daniels & Judy Daniels v. The Area Plan Comm'n of Allen Cnty., 306 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2002).
William Daniels & Judy Daniels v. The Area Plan Comm'n of Allen Cnty., 306 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2002). “The court also found that Indiana Code § 36-7-3-11, under which the Plan Commission had vacated the covenant, was unconstitutional because it does not require the Commission to follow the procedures set forth in the state’s eminent domain statute for determining public use.”
Daniels v. Area Plan Comm'n of Allen Cnty., 125 F. Supp. 2d 338 (N.D. Ind. 2000). “The Daniels, however, in their motion for summary judgment, argue that Indiana Code § 36-7-3-11 unconstitutionally authorizes private takings.”
Young Partners, LLC v. Bd. of Educ., 160 P.3d 830 (Kan. 2007). “2002), where the court explained: “The Daniels argue that Indiana Code § 36-7-3-11 is facially invalid because it does not define what constitutes a public purpose.”
Daniels, William v. Area Plan Comm'n (7th Cir. 2002). “The court also found that Indiana Code § 36-7-3-11, under which the Plan Commission had vacated the covenant, was unconstitutional because it does not require the Commission to follow the procedures set forth in the state’s eminent domain statute for determin- ing public use.”
— Ind. Code § 36-7-3-11(b) — 1 case
Daniels v. Area Plan Comm'n of Allen Cnty., 125 F. Supp. 2d 338 (N.D. Ind. 2000). “The Daniels, however, in their motion for summary judgment, argue that Indiana Code § 36-7-3-11 unconstitutionally authorizes private takings.”
— Ind. Code § 36-7-3-11(e) — 2 cases
Daniels v. Area Plan Comm'n of Allen Cnty., 125 F. Supp. 2d 338 (N.D. Ind. 2000). “The Daniels, however, in their motion for summary judgment, argue that Indiana Code § 36-7-3-11 unconstitutionally authorizes private takings.”
Daniels, William v. Area Plan Comm'n (7th Cir. 2002). “The court also found that Indiana Code § 36-7-3-11, under which the Plan Commission had vacated the covenant, was unconstitutional because it does not require the Commission to follow the procedures set forth in the state’s eminent domain statute for determin- ing public use.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.