Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614 (2025)
Burden of demonstrating invalidity of zoning decision; grounds for relief
✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Sec. 1614. (a) The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of a zoning decision is on the party to the judicial review proceeding asserting invalidity.
(b) The validity of a zoning decision shall be determined in accordance with the standards of review provided in this section, as applied to the decision at the time it was made.
(c) The court shall make findings of fact on each material issue on which the court's decision is based.
(d) The court shall grant relief under section 1615 of this chapter only if the court determines that a person seeking judicial relief has been prejudiced by a zoning decision that is:
(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
(4) without observance of procedure required by law; or
(5) unsupported by substantial evidence.
As added by P.L.126-2011, SEC.61.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2013–2026 · leading case: HH-Indianapolis, LLC v. Consol. City of Indianapo, 889 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2018).
HH-Indianapolis, LLC v. Consol. City of Indianapo, 889 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2018). “Rather than seek judicial review of that decision in an Indiana state court pursuant to Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614 (d), HH filed this lawsuit against the City on January 5, 2017.”
Dunmoyer v. Wells Cnty., Indiana Area Plan Comm'n, 32 N.E.3d 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “See I.C. § 36-7-4-1614(a) (stating that the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of a zoning decision is on the party asserting the invalidity).”
Essroc Cement Corp. v. Clark Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals & Sierra Club, 122 N.E.3d 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614 (d). "The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of a zoning decision is on the party to the judicial review proceeding asserting invalidity.”
Lockerbie Glove Factory Town Home Owners Ass'n, Inc., Andre B. Lacy, Julia L. Lacy, Elliot J. & Serena Androphy v. Indianapolis Historic Pres. Comm'n, & Dan Jacobs, 106 N.E.3d 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614 (a). [11] When we review an administrative decision, we may not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of the witnesses.”
Town of Pittsboro Advisory Plan Comm'n & Town of Pittsboro Town Council v. Art Park, LLC, 26 N.E.3d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “[50] We agree with the Town that Ark Park’s claim for declaratory judgment was not the proper method for bringing its specific challenge to the constitutionality of Section 13 of the 2004 Zoning Ordinance. We note that the 1600 Series “establishes the exclusive means for…”
Caddyshack Looper, LLC v. Long Beach Advisory Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 22 N.E.3d 694 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “5-5-14); see also Ind.Code § 36-7-4-1614 (eff. Jul. 1, 2011) (same substantive provisions related to judicial review of zoning decisions made by a board of zoning appeals).”
I-465, LLC v. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals Div. II of Marion Cnty., Indiana, Jeffrey R. Baumgarth & The Myers Y. Cooper Co., 36 N.E.3d 1094 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “, that approval of the variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community, had been adequately established.”
Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals Div. III of Marion Cnty., Indiana v. Traders Point Ass'n of Neighborhoods, Kenneth F. Zahora (TRS), Cherie L. Zahora (TRS), 81 N.E.3d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “” Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614 (a). In reviewing an administrative decision, a trial court may not try the facts de novo or substitute its own judgment for that of the agency.”
Mark Goley v. The White Barn Venue, LLC, & Madison City Bd. of Zoning Appeals (mem. dec.), No. 18A-MI-1579 (Ind. Ct. App. May 15, 2019). “” Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614 (a). The trial court here found the BZA’s decision was both unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious.”
Metro. Dev. Comm'n of Marion Cnty., Indiana, & The Consol. City of Indianapolis/Marion Cnty., Indiana v. George Novogroder, No. 18A-MI-2761 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2019). “Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614 . If the court makes such a determination, then the court may set aside a zoning decision and (i) remand the case to the board for further proceedings or (ii) compel a decision that has been unreasonably delayed or unlawfully withheld.”
Nolan Holloway v. Grant Cnty. Area Plan Comm'n (mem. dec.), 152 N.E.3d 1098 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). “Id. We presume the determination of a plan commission with expertise in a given subject is correct.”
James E. & Tamara L. Dunmoyer, Jr., Linus & Karen Harrold, Theron & Clara Miller v. Wells Cnty., Indiana Area Plan Comm'n, Wells Cnty. Wind II, LLC, No. 90A02-1407-MI-460 (Ind. Ct. App. May 12, 2015). “See I.C. §36-7-4-1614(a) (stating that the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of a zoning decision is on the party asserting the invalidity).”
Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614(a): 8 cases
Dunmoyer v. Wells Cnty., Indiana Area Plan Comm'n, 32 N.E.3d 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “See I.C. § 36-7-4-1614(a) (stating that the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of a zoning decision is on the party asserting the invalidity).”
I-465, LLC v. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals Div. II of Marion Cnty., Indiana, Jeffrey R. Baumgarth & The Myers Y. Cooper Co., 36 N.E.3d 1094 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “, that approval of the variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community, had been adequately established.”
Caddyshack Looper, LLC v. Long Beach Advisory Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 22 N.E.3d 694 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “5-5-14); see also Ind.Code § 36-7-4-1614 (eff. Jul. 1, 2011) (same substantive provisions related to judicial review of zoning decisions made by a board of zoning appeals).”
City of Bloomington Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. UJ-Eighty Corp., 141 N.E.3d 869 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
Nolan Holloway v. Grant Cnty. Area Plan Comm'n (mem. dec.), 152 N.E.3d 1098 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). “Id. We presume the determination of a plan commission with expertise in a given subject is correct.”
Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614(c): 1 case
Nolan Holloway v. Grant Cnty. Area Plan Comm'n (mem. dec.), 152 N.E.3d 1098 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). “Id. We presume the determination of a plan commission with expertise in a given subject is correct.”
Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614(d): 13 cases
Dunmoyer v. Wells Cnty., Indiana Area Plan Comm'n, 32 N.E.3d 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “See I.C. § 36-7-4-1614(a) (stating that the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of a zoning decision is on the party asserting the invalidity).”
Lockerbie Glove Factory Town Home Owners Ass'n, Inc., Andre B. Lacy, Julia L. Lacy, Elliot J. & Serena Androphy v. Indianapolis Historic Pres. Comm'n, & Dan Jacobs, 106 N.E.3d 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614 (a). [11] When we review an administrative decision, we may not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of the witnesses.”
Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals Div. III of Marion Cnty., Indiana v. Traders Point Ass'n of Neighborhoods, Kenneth F. Zahora (TRS), Cherie L. Zahora (TRS), 81 N.E.3d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “” Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614 (a). In reviewing an administrative decision, a trial court may not try the facts de novo or substitute its own judgment for that of the agency.”
Mark Goley v. The White Barn Venue, LLC, & Madison City Bd. of Zoning Appeals (mem. dec.), No. 18A-MI-1579 (Ind. Ct. App. May 15, 2019). “” Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614 (a). The trial court here found the BZA’s decision was both unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious.”
GEFT Outdoor, L.L.C. v. Monroe Cnty., Indiana, No. 1:19-cv-01257 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 23, 2021).
Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614(d)(1): 2 cases
Noblesville Indiana Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. FMG Indianapolis, LLC, 217 N.E.3d 510 (Ind. 2023).
James E. & Tamara L. Dunmoyer, Jr., Linus & Karen Harrold, Theron & Clara Miller v. Wells Cnty., Indiana Area Plan Comm'n, Wells Cnty. Wind II, LLC, No. 90A02-1407-MI-460 (Ind. Ct. App. May 12, 2015). “See I.C. §36-7-4-1614(a) (stating that the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of a zoning decision is on the party asserting the invalidity).”
Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614(d)(2): 1 case
Town of Pittsboro Advisory Plan Comm'n & Town of Pittsboro Town Council v. Art Park, LLC, 26 N.E.3d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “[50] We agree with the Town that Ark Park’s claim for declaratory judgment was not the proper method for bringing its specific challenge to the constitutionality of Section 13 of the 2004 Zoning Ordinance. We note that the 1600 Series “establishes the exclusive means for…”
Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614(d)(5): 2 cases
Mark Goley v. The White Barn Venue, LLC, & Madison City Bd. of Zoning Appeals (mem. dec.), No. 18A-MI-1579 (Ind. Ct. App. May 15, 2019). “” Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614 (a). The trial court here found the BZA’s decision was both unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious.”
Beaver Gravel Corp., d/b/a Beaver Materials v. Eros Vladovich, No. 24A-PL-02494 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2025).
Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614(d)(l): 1 case
Dunmoyer v. Wells Cnty., Indiana Area Plan Comm'n, 32 N.E.3d 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “See I.C. § 36-7-4-1614(a) (stating that the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of a zoning decision is on the party asserting the invalidity).”
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.