Paul Stieler Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Evansville
2 N.E.3d 1269
| Ind. | 2014Background
- Evansville adopted G-2012-1 in 2012 expanding the Smoking Ban to bars and restaurants but exempting the Casino riverboat.
- Affected bars and private clubs challenged the ordinance as facially unconstitutional under the Indiana Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause.
- Trial court denied relief; Court of Appeals affirmed; this Court granted transfer to address both actions in one opinion.
- The Court applies Collins v. Day’s two-prong test: (1) disparate treatment must be reasonably related to inherent characteristics; (2) treatment must be uniformly applicable to those similarly situated.
- The Amending Ordinance differentiates by floating vs land-based establishments and by casino gambling under Riverboat statutes; the majority finds the exemption not reasonably related to inherent characteristics, invalidating the ordinance on its face.
- Severability: the Court holds the unconstitutional provision not separable and restores the pre-amendment Smoking Ban; the decision is that the Amending Ordinance is invalid in its entirety.
- Dissent argues the exemption is reasonably related to inherent characteristics and would uphold the ordinance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Amending Ordinance violate Article 1, Section 23? | Bars and Clubs claim unequal privilege due to Casino exemption. | City contends exemption serves public health with economic rationale. | Yes, facially violates Article 1, Section 23. |
| Should the entire Amending Ordinance be voided or severed? | Exemption taints the whole act; severability not appropriate. | If inseverable, entire act invalid; severability clause absent. | Unseverable; entire Amending Ordinance invalidated; 2006 ban restored. |
| What standard governs facial challenges under Collins v. Day? | Challenger must negate every conceivable basis for classification. | Deference to legislative classifications; need not prove motives. | Two-prong Collins test applied; challenge sustained on first prong. |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. 1994) (two-prong test for Equal Privileges and Immunities, relatedness and uniform applicability)
- Dvorak v. City of Bloomington, 796 N.E.2d 236 (Ind. 2003) (presumption of constitutionality; burden on challenger to overcome)
- State v. Moss-Dwyer, 686 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. 1997) (facial challenge standard and statutory interpretation guidance)