Kole v. FAULTLESS
963 N.E.2d 493
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Indiana liberalized local government reorganization in 2006 via the Government Modernization Act (Article 1.5).
- Town of Fishers and Fall Creek Township studied merging into a City of Fishers under Act provisions.
- Plan proposed: nine-member at-large City Council; City Mayor appointed by Council; no veto power by Mayor; City Manager with Council approval.
- Referendum contemplated after plan approval; litigation arose over whether voters could elect a mayor under the new structure.
- District Court certified a question about Article 1.5’s scope; Indiana Supreme Court accepted and held the Act permits this form of reorganization.
- Court emphasized liberal construction of Article 1.5 to effect the Act’s purposes and to allow broader local authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a reorganization into a city with at-large council and appointed mayor is permitted | Kole argues reorganization limits rights under 36-4-5-2 and -6-3(i). | Faultless argues Article 1.5 grants broad authority to reorganize with such structure. | Yes, Article 1.5 allows the proposed structure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tippecanoe County v. Indiana Manufacturers Association, 784 N.E.2d 463 (Ind. 2003) (Dillon Rule background and home rule framework)
- City of Gary ex rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003) (Home Rule Act interpretation and local powers)
- City of South Bend v. Chicago, S.B. & N.I. Ry. Co., 179 Ind. 455 (Ind. 1913) (ultra vires and municipal powers context (Dillon Rule era))
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Town of Crown Point, 146 Ind. 421 (Ind. 1896) (early limits on municipal power and nuisances)
- Snyder v. King, 958 N.E.2d 764 (Ind. 2011) (certified-question approach cautions; comity considerations)