966 N.E.2d 678
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellants Clark County Drainage Board and Clark County Board of Commissioners appeal while Robert Isgrigg is the appellee.
- Isgrigg sought rehearing of this court's opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court's summary judgment for Isgrigg.
- The Sunset Hills subdivision project involved drainage improvements; the central issue is whether it created a regulated drain under Indiana law.
- The prior opinion held the Sunset Hills project did not establish a regulated drain, applying the statutory definition of regulated drains to open channels.
- Isgrigg argued on rehearing that tiled drains were involved and that a swale could be a regulated drain, raising waiver and statutory interpretation questions.
- The court denies rehearing and reaffirms that the Sunset Hills project did not involve a regulated drain, maintaining that a swale is not an open drain under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sunset Hills involved tiled drains | Isgrigg contends tiled drains were involved. | Drainage Board did not argue tiled drains; issue waived on rehearing. | Not a tiled drain; affirmed. |
| Whether a swale qualifies as a regulated drain | Isgrigg argues swales are open drains based on testimony. | Swales are not regulated drains under the Indiana Code. | Swale is not a regulated drain. |
| Whether Isgrigg waived new arguments on rehearing | Isgrigg contends he could raise new points on rehearing. | Waiver applies to new arguments raised in rehearing petitions. | Court affirmed prior ruling; no new arguments considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Haddock, 881 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (new arguments may be waived if raised for first time on rehearing)
- State v. Prater, 922 N.E.2d 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (statutory interpretation aims to effect legislative intent)
- Van Prooyen Builders, Inc. v. Lambert, 911 N.E.2d 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (plain-language review allowed even if argument not fully developed on appeal)
