The Board of Commissioners of Union County, Indiana v. Joe McGuinness, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Indiana Department of Transportation, 80 N.E.3d 164

Background

INDOT repaired U.S. Route 27 (a U.S. route maintained by the State) in Union County in 2010–2011; Union County alleges INDOT’s work damaged septic systems on three private properties.
Union County filed for declaratory relief (to declare responsibility for the highway/storm drain) and injunctive relief requiring INDOT to repair the septic systems.
INDOT moved to dismiss under Ind. Tr. R. 12(B)(6), arguing Union County lacked standing; the trial court granted dismissal and denied correction of error.
The Court of Appeals reversed, allowing declaratory relief and third‑party standing theories; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether Union County (a county government) adequately pled personal or third‑party standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of affected private landowners.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to bring declaratory judgment on responsibility for U.S. Route 27	Union County sought a declaration that INDOT, not the county, was responsible for the highway and associated drain	INDOT: County lacks a personal interest or property right in the highway; complaint fails to plead a substantial present interest	Dismissed — County failed to plead any personal stake or property interest sufficient for declaratory relief
Third‑party (public) standing to seek injunction on behalf of residents	County argued it could seek injunctive relief to protect public health and residents’ septic systems	INDOT: Public standing doctrine is for citizens/citizen‑relators, not county governments	Dismissed — public standing unavailable because the relator must be an individual citizen
Associational standing to sue for members (affected landowners)	County claimed it could act like an association representing its residents	INDOT: County is not an association under Hunt; individual participation of affected landowners is required	Dismissed — County is not an association and relief would require participation of affected owners
Parens patriae authority to assert residents’ claims	County implicitly argued it could act to protect residents’ interests (parent of the country concept)	INDOT: Only a sovereign (the State) can act parens patriae; counties lack that sovereign power	Dismissed — counties have no parens patriae authority to bring such claims

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Cittadine v. Indiana Dep’t of Transp., 790 N.E.2d 978 (Ind. 2003) (public‑standing doctrine explained and applied to citizen relators)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1977) (associational standing test)
King v. S.B., 837 N.E.2d 965 (Ind. 2005) (12(B)(6) standard and dismissal only where no set of facts would entitle relief)
Trail v. Boys & Girls Clubs of Nw. Indiana, 845 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. 2006) (operative facts required in pleadings to state an actionable claim)
Bd. of Comm’rs of Howard Cty. v. Kokomo City Plan Comm’n, 330 N.E.2d 92 (Ind. 1975) (county lacks sovereign parens patriae powers)