Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 5-22-17-5 (2026)
Funds not appropriated or available; contract cancellation; exemption for lease of state owned property
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 5. (a) This section does not apply to a contract for the lease of property owned by the state under which no state expenditures are required.
(b) When the fiscal body of the governmental body makes a written determination that funds are not appropriated or otherwise available to support continuation of performance of a contract, the contract is considered canceled.
(c) A determination by the fiscal body that funds are not appropriated or otherwise available to support continuation of performance is final and conclusive.
As added by P.L.49-1997, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.177-2021, SEC.2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 2006–2019 · leading case: Norton v. Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Inc., 2018 CO 3 (Colo. 2018).
Norton v. Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Inc., 2018 CO 3 (Colo. 2018). “For example, a statute in Indiana bars the Indiana state government from contracting with or making grants to “any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed that involves the expenditure of state funds or federal funds…”
Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee, 862 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2017). “at 967 (quoting Ind. Code § 5-22-17-5 .5(b)). 66 Id. at 968 .”
Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Comm'r of Indiana State Dep't of Health, 699 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2012). “” Ind. Code § 5-22-17-5 .5(b). The Hyde Amendment already forbids states from using federal funds to pay for most non-therapeutic abortions; Indiana has a similar ban on the use of state funds.”
Sanitary Dist. of the City of Hammond, Indiana & the City of Hammond, Indiana v. Town of Griggith, Indiana Town of Highland, Indiana, 39 N.E.3d 400 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “The District claims that it was within its statutory authority to cancel the Treatment Agreements pursuant to Indiana Code section 5-22-17-5. The District contends that the trial court’s determination that the Treatment Agreements were excluded from the provisions of Article 22…”
City of Fort Wayne v. Pierce Mfg., Inc., 853 N.E.2d 508 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “, Ind.Code § 5-22-17-5 (involving a determination, to cancel a contract where funds are not appropriated or available); Ind.”
Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee, 837 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2016). “at 967 (quoting Ind. Code § 5-22-17-5 .5(b)). . Id. at 968 .”
Happy Valley LLC v. Madison Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “The response to the budgetary request, albeit minimalist, made plain the Council’s funding decision: consistent with Indiana Code Section 5-22-17-5, “funds are Open Door Law or that the February 15, 2017 Resolution commemorating a historical event was not a violation of the Open…”
— Ind. Code § 5-22-17-5(a) — 1 case
Sanitary Dist. of the City of Hammond, Indiana & the City of Hammond, Indiana v. Town of Griggith, Indiana Town of Highland, Indiana, 39 N.E.3d 400 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “The District claims that it was within its statutory authority to cancel the Treatment Agreements pursuant to Indiana Code section 5-22-17-5. The District contends that the trial court’s determination that the Treatment Agreements were excluded from the provisions of Article 22…”
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.