Ind. Code » Title 4
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 4-22-2-4 (2025)

Repealed

✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Formerly: Acts 1945, c.120, s.4. As amended by Acts 1977, P.L.38, SEC.3. Repealed by P.L.31-1985, SEC.50.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1976–1987 · leading case: Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n v. McShane, 354 N.E.2d 259 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n v. McShane, 354 N.E.2d 259 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 5× “) A public hearing was subsequently set for October 28, 1975 and notice was published pursuant to IC § 4-22-2-4. On October 27, 1975, McShane obtained a temporary restraining order against the ABC and its members in Marion County Superior Court, Room No.”
Claus v. Smith, 519 F. Supp. 829 (N.D. Ind. 1981). · cites it 4× “141 without complying with the requirements of Ind.Code § 4-22-2-4, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: Before any rule is adopted by any agency it shall cause a notice to be published in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Marion County,…”
United Beverage Co. of South Bend v. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n, 566 F. Supp. 650 (N.D. Ind. 1983). · cites it 3× “By statute (IC § 4-22-2-4) the ABC is required at such a hearing to give “full consideration” to “all relevant matter presented.”
Indiana Air Pollution Control Bd. v. City of Richmond, 443 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983). “It claims the classification was rule making, and thus, it was not required to follow the strict notice and hearing requirements for adjudication under Ind.Code 4-22-2-4, the Indiana Administrative Adjudication Act.”
Claus ex rel. Claus v. Goshert, 657 F. Supp. 237 (N.D. Ind. 1987). · cites it 2× “205, I.C. § 4-22-2-4, and due process. (3) [Declare] that Defendants’ final rule [failed] to meet the requirements of 42 U.”
Claus by Claus v. Goshert, 657 F. Supp. 237 (N.D. Ind. 1987). · cites it 2× “205, I.C. § 4-22-2-4, and due process. (3) [Declare] that Defendants' final rule [failed] to meet the requirements of 42 U.”
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.