Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 4-22-2-3 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 3. (a) "Agency" means any officer, board, commission, department, division, bureau, committee, or other governmental entity exercising any of the executive (including the administrative) powers of state government. The term does not include the judicial or legislative departments of state government or a political subdivision as defined in IC 36-1-2-13.

(b) "Rule" means the whole or any part of an agency statement of general applicability that:

(1) has or is designed to have the effect of law; and

(2) implements, interprets, or prescribes:

(A) law or policy; or

(B) the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency.

The term includes a fee, a fine, a civil penalty, a financial benefit limitation, or another payment amount set by an agency that otherwise qualifies as a rule.

(d) "Agency action" has the meaning set forth in IC 4-21.5-1-4.

(e) "Person" means an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, unincorporated association, or governmental entity.

(f) "Publisher" refers to the publisher of the Indiana Register and Indiana Administrative Code, which is the legislative council, or the legislative services agency operating under the direction of the council.

(g) "Unit" means a county, city, town, township, local health department, or school corporation.

(h) The definitions in this section apply throughout this article.

Formerly: Acts 1945, c.120, s.3; Acts 1967, c.183, s.1. As amended by Acts 1977, P.L.38, SEC.2; Acts 1978, P.L.17, SEC.1; Acts 1979, P.L.25, SEC.1; Acts 1980, P.L.74, SEC.6; Acts 1982, P.L.27, SEC.1; P.L.31-1985, SEC.1; P.L.7-1987, SEC.5; P.L.8-1993, SEC.28; P.L.249-2023, SEC.8; P.L.93-2024, SEC.8.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt. v. Twin Eagle LLC, 798 N.E.2d 839 (Ind. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt. v. Twin Eagle LLC, 798 N.E.2d 839 (Ind. 2003). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 4-22-2-3. We conclude that Twin Eagle's claim that a new rulemaking procedure was required turns on an incorrect view of Indiana's regulatory framework.”

Roy Lee Ward v. Robert E. Carter, Jr., Comm'r of the Indiana Dep't of Corr., & Ron Neal, Superintendent of the Indiana State Prison, In Their Off. Capacities, 90 N.E.3d 660 (Ind. 2018). · cites it 5× “at § 4-22-2-3(b). Case law defines an administrative "rule" similarly, laying out four elements: (1) "an agency statement of general applicability to a class;" (2) that is "applied prospectively to the class;" (3) that is "applied as though it has the effect of law;" and (4)…”

S.S. v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 941 N.E.2d 550 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 4-22-2-3(b). Agency rules to which the ARPA applies are subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures, without which they lack legal effect.”

Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Comm'n v. Lebamoff Enter., Inc., 27 N.E.3d 802 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “[33] Indiana Code section 4-22-2-3(b) defines a “rule” as “the whole or any part of an agency statement of general applicability that: (1) has or is designed to have the effect of law; and (2) implements, interprets, or prescribes: (A) law or policy; or (B) the organization,…”

Indiana-Kentucky Elec. Corp. v. Comm'r, Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt., 820 N.E.2d 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Indiana Code section 4-22-2-3(b) defines a "rule" as: [The whole or any part of an agency statement of general applicability that: (1) has or is designed to have the effect of law; and (2) implements, scribes: interprets, or pre- (A) law or policy; or (B) the organization,…”

C.H. v. Payne, 683 F. Supp. 2d 865 (S.D. Ind. 2010). · cites it 2× “” Ind.Code § 4-22-2-3(b). Defendants contend that DCS was not required to engage in formal rulemaking on rates because rate-setting is a contractual matter between DCS and each Provider.”

In Re Madison Cnty. Prob. Officers' Salaries, 682 N.E.2d 498 (Ind. 1997). · cites it 4× “However, the Board—being part of the judicial branch of government—is not an “agency” as defined by the Act and therefore does not engage in rule-making as defined in Indiana Code § 4-22-2-3. Therefore, the Administrative Adjudication Act simply does not apply to the Board’s…”

Indiana State Bd. of Pub. Welfare v. Tioga Pines Living Ctr., Inc., 622 N.E.2d 935 (Ind. 1993). “§ 4-22-2-3 (Burns 1993). The challenged action here involves rulemaking as opposed to adjudication.”

Silverman v. Villegas, 894 N.E.2d 249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “Even if defendant could effect the changes in the law set out in the September 30, 2002 Rule, the rule represents substantive change and therefore cannot occur without rule-making that satisfies the requirements of Ind.Code § 4-22-2-3, et seq. Inasmuch as the rule change was…”

Villegas v. Silverman, 832 N.E.2d 598 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Indiana Code § 4-22-2-3(b) defines a "rule" as: [Tlhe whole or any part of an agency statement of general applicability that: (1) has or is designed to have the effect of law; and (2) implements, scribes: interprets, or pre- (A) law or policy; or (B) the organization, procedure,…”

The Pantry, Inc. v. Stop-N-Go Foods, Inc., 777 F. Supp. 713 (S.D. Ind. 1991). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 4-22-2-3(b) (1990). The requirements of the administrative procedures apply to the Department of Environmental Management and the Water Pollution Control Board.”

Sterling Mgmt.-Orchard Ridge Apts. v. State Bd. of Tax Commissioners, 730 N.E.2d 828 (Ind. T.C. 2000). · cites it 2× “Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 4.2-1-5 (1992) (codified in present form at id.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— Ind. Code § 4-22-2-3(a) — 1 case

In Re Madison Cnty. Prob. Officers' Salaries, 682 N.E.2d 498 (Ind. 1997). “However, the Board—being part of the judicial branch of government—is not an “agency” as defined by the Act and therefore does not engage in rule-making as defined in Indiana Code § 4-22-2-3. Therefore, the Administrative Adjudication Act simply does not apply to the Board’s…”

— Ind. Code § 4-22-2-3(b) — 9 cases

Roy Lee Ward v. Robert E. Carter, Jr., Comm'r of the Indiana Dep't of Corr., & Ron Neal, Superintendent of the Indiana State Prison, In Their Off. Capacities, 90 N.E.3d 660 (Ind. 2018). “at § 4-22-2-3(b). Case law defines an administrative "rule" similarly, laying out four elements: (1) "an agency statement of general applicability to a class;" (2) that is "applied prospectively to the class;" (3) that is "applied as though it has the effect of law;" and (4)…”

S.S. v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 941 N.E.2d 550 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Ind.Code § 4-22-2-3(b). Agency rules to which the ARPA applies are subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures, without which they lack legal effect.”

Indiana-Kentucky Elec. Corp. v. Comm'r, Indiana Dep't of Env't Mgmt., 820 N.E.2d 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Indiana Code section 4-22-2-3(b) defines a "rule" as: [The whole or any part of an agency statement of general applicability that: (1) has or is designed to have the effect of law; and (2) implements, scribes: interprets, or pre- (A) law or policy; or (B) the organization,…”

C.H. v. Payne, 683 F. Supp. 2d 865 (S.D. Ind. 2010). “” Ind.Code § 4-22-2-3(b). Defendants contend that DCS was not required to engage in formal rulemaking on rates because rate-setting is a contractual matter between DCS and each Provider.”

— Ind. Code § 4-22-2-3(b)(1) — 1 case

Roy Lee Ward v. Robert E. Carter, Jr., Comm'r of the Indiana Dep't of Corr., & Ron Neal, Superintendent of the Indiana State Prison, In Their Off. Capacities, 90 N.E.3d 660 (Ind. 2018). “at § 4-22-2-3(b). Case law defines an administrative "rule" similarly, laying out four elements: (1) "an agency statement of general applicability to a class;" (2) that is "applied prospectively to the class;" (3) that is "applied as though it has the effect of law;" and (4)…”

— Ind. Code § 4-22-2-3(c) — 2 cases

Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Comm'n v. Lebamoff Enter., Inc., 27 N.E.3d 802 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “[33] Indiana Code section 4-22-2-3(b) defines a “rule” as “the whole or any part of an agency statement of general applicability that: (1) has or is designed to have the effect of law; and (2) implements, interprets, or prescribes: (A) law or policy; or (B) the organization,…”

Roy Lee Ward v. Robert E. Carter, Jr., Comm'r of the Indiana Dep't of Corr., & Ron Neal, Superintendent of the Indiana State Prison, in their Off. capacities, 79 N.E.3d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).

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.