960 N.E.2d 824
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Utility Center operates a public water/sewer utility in Northeast Indiana under Aqua Indiana; City of Fort Wayne condemned the North System owned by Utility Center.
- Board of Public Works determined compensation; Company appealed to trial court.
- Trial court limited review to abuse of discretion and denied jury trial; Company appealed interlocutory order.
- Court held that the review should be de novo on legal issues but limited to substantial evidence on factual issues; jury trial not required.
- Case law supports limited judicial review of administrative determinations of just compensation and permits non-de novo review of factual issues under Indiana law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of trial court review of Board’s just-compensation decision | Company argues de novo review is required for compensation | City argues limited review is proper under statute and case law | Limited de novo review with substantial-evidence standard; no jury trial required |
| Whether due process requires a full evidentiary hearing before an impartial tribunal | Company claims Board proceedings were not a full hearing | City contends Board provided sufficient due process; discovery not required | Due process satisfied with a full hearing before impartial tribunal; record limited to substantial-evidence review |
| Whether Board could act as prosecutor and decision-maker without violating due process | Stewart disallowed dual role for city in certain contexts | Eminent domain proceedings inherently involve advocacy by the municipality | No due process violation; Board composition and advocacy did not show impropriety; proceedings valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Uhlir v. Ritz, 255 Ind. 342 (Ind. 1970) (limited de novo review; substantial-evidence standard for factual findings)
- Nickel, 165 Ind.App. 250 (Ind. 1975) (due process; right to judicial review limited to jurisdictional/due process questions)
- Slentz v. City of Fort Wayne, 233 Ind. 226 (Ind. 1954) (scope of trial court review of condemnation proceedings)
- Bragg v. Weaver, 251 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1919) (due process aspects of compensation proceedings)
- Stewart v. City of Mishawaka, 261 Ind. 670 (Ind. 1974) (due process in administrative board hearings; dual-role concerns)
- Guido v. City of Marion, 151 Ind.App. 435 (Ind. 1972) (dual-role board and prosecutor in proceedings permissible under certain circumstances)
- Crane v. Hahlo, 258 U.S. 142 (U.S. 1922) (due process and review of administrative determination of compensation)
- Monongahela Navig. Co. v. U.S., 148 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1893) (judicial responsibility to ensure just compensation; review standards)
- Gulf Power Co. v. U.S., 187 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 1999) (adequate procedures for obtaining just compensation; review sufficiency)