*1 H29 his duty Administrative Rule (§ 22-4-17-3)-2,
Regulation supra. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND COMPANY, Appellant, TRUST Ind.R.App.P. 11(B)(3), Pursuant it is responsibility our argu- address other ments raised Berzins’s brief filed with INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF of Appeals. the Court Berzins maintains HIGHWAYS, Appellee. the Review Board erred in to review failing No. 582S203. produced hearing evidence at the con- ducted the referee. Her contention is Supreme Court of Indiana. predicated on transcript the fact that the Sept. hearing prepared until she sought judicial review of Review 6, 1982. Rehearing Denied Dec. decision; Board’s she maintains the Review Board, acting without the mere- transcript,
ly “rubber stamped” the referee’s decision. time,
At the same she has concedes she
knowledge internal machinations of Employment Security Division. hearing before the referee was
tape-recorded. In the absence of evidence contrary, it must be assumed the and,
Review properly good Board acted
faith, tape-recorded reviewed the testimo
ny. Co., Guevara Inland Steel
Ind.App.
tention is without merit.
Berzins also contends evidence
was insufficient to findings sustain the Board;
fact rendered the Review con she
comitantly, findings maintains the support
fact do not the conclusion of law voluntarily she left employment her
with Americana pre Healthcare. We have
viously presented; discussed the evidence
we explained, the supports evidence
conclusion that voluntarily Berzins left personal
work for reasons. reasons,
For all the foregoing there was
no error and the denial of unemployment
compensation benefits should be affirmed.
Denial affirmed. C.J.,
GIYAN, DeBRULER, PREN- PIVARNIK, JJ.,
TICE and concur. *2 8-15- Legislature in 1951. Ind.Code
ana was 1973). The (Burns Commission 2-3 construct, empowered and authorized “[t]o operate toll maintain, and repair, police road . . and to issue toll road . Indiana, pay- of the state of revenue bonds revenues, provid- as herein from able ed, any part all or paying for of purpose road one or more toll any of the cost of 8-15-2-5(e) & projects....” a was (Burns 1973). The Commission (f) politic in the state corporate and body both sovereign the state in issued In capacity. of operation for the construction bonds of portion the northern a toll road across Indiana. Toll the Indiana September
On agree- a trust Road Commission executed of bonds ment for the issuance revenue $259,500,000 pay the cost of the amount of new on the toll road six of construction completion of seventh interchanges, Deahl, Carey, Warren A. John L. Thomas two of land for interchange, purchase Thornburg, L. Murray, Barnes & South the re- interchanges, and possible additional Bend, appellant for American National col- of toll and modernization construction Bank and Co. Trust defendant, American The lection facilities. Pearson, Gen., Linley E. William E. Atty. a na- Company, Bank Trust National Beeler, Gen., Asst. L. Daily, Atty. Virgil its principal banking tional association Daniels, Indi- Stayton, Thomas G. Baker & Bend, party, was a banking office South Dept, anapolis, appellee for Indiana of trustee, agreement. original to the trust Highways. 3.15 agreement provides in § trust proceeds if sale PIVARNIK, Justice. entire pay bonds are not sufficient appeal appellee’s This arises from the ac- project, of the construction cost declaratory in the Marion judgment is re- Toll the Indiana Road was orig- Circuit Court. this case Although in such Completion to “issue Bonds quired filed inally Appeals Court necessary yield proceeds net amount as is Cause No. 2-282 A this Court entertains ... Fund sufficient to the Construction jurisdiction pursuant Ind.R.App.P. Record, p. 58. such deficit....” 4(A)(10), upon grounds this appeal issue Toll Road Commission to order for the question involves a substantial of law of bonds, necessary for Ameri- completion it is great public importance and that an emer- trustee, Bank, to authenti- can National gency Ap- exists for determination. speedy Un- completion bonds. cate deliver pellee, Department High- Indiana 3.12(a), 3.15 and der §§ transfer; ways, petition filed and de- trustee can authenticate before the appellant, Bank & Trust American National receive completion it must liver Co., joined petition, later which was unqualified of bond counsel granted on May matters, effect, other among are valid and original particular series plaintiff, Indiana binding upon was created Indi- Commission. H31 30, 1980, On March Law 74 Public The case was submitted for a decision on (the Transportation Act) 1980 Session Laws stipulated the pleadings along facts which, approved part, created with briefs parties. filed both The trial Highways. questions court presented, found seq. (Burns Code 8-9.5-4-1 et Supp.1982). involving grant authority and the ad- *3 July 1,1981, new Department Effective the trust, ministration of a legal affected the of was to all Highways assume the powers, relations of the parties presented a duties and liabilities of several Indiana justiciable controversy appropriate for de- agencies, among which were the Indiana Declaratory termination under the Uniform Toll Road Commission and the Indiana 34-4-10-1, Act, Judgments et Ind.Code § Commission. (Burns 1973). seq. reviewing After the sub- (Burns 1982). 8-9.5-4-10 Supp. § materials, mitted the trial court ruled that Transportation After Act passed the was may bonds be the by Depart- issued Indiana by legislature, the prior the signing violating ment of Highways without Art. Bowen, by Attorney Governor General Sen- 5 of the Indiana Constitution. The § dak, in official capacity, his the advised court held that the purpose of Art. § governor the act was unconstitutional. protect solvency was to the credit and of The Attorney General felt that the portions the state and the because revenue bonds Transportation of the Act which per- would were a stipulated payable solely be mit the newly created agencies state fund, special there on obligation issue was the revenue bonds conflict with Art. Constitution, 5 of the Indiana payments § the ban state to make on the bonds against Later, state bonded debt. when through a fund taxing power, or its appeared that there would cost overruns and therefore completion the issuance of on the 1980 toll project road which would by Department bonds the of Highways require an additional of completion issue a would not constitute debt of the state bonds, American Bank National refused to within meaning the of Art. 5. The authenticate and deliver additional bonds issuer, court also felt that status of the the until bond counsel opinion delivered its state, agency whether the move, about proposed and bond counsel Department public of or as Highways, refused to deliver an until pow- corporate entity from the state in separate er and authority Department of sovereign as the Toll Road capacity, such Highways to issue bonds judicial- revenue is Commission, was to the immaterial matter. ly determined to be valid. on Accordingly, Appellant ap- American Bank now National 19, 1981, June Toll Indiana Road Com- peals, alleging grant that the of authoriza- brought mission suit American Na- Department High- to the Indiana of Co., tional seeking Bank and Trust a declar- issue revenue vio- atory ways to toll road bonds judgment that the by “issuance Department of Highways subsequent lates Art. 5 of the Indiana Constitu- 30,1981, June of toll road revenue bonds tion. 8-15-2, accordance IC Appellant assumption that the contends from revenues of the Toll Road or from the Indiana, by the of De- through state proceeds of other toll road revenue bonds of partment Highways, of of earnings thereon, will not create Bonds, including Toll Road Revenue State, debt of the and that the of bonds, completion assump- constitutes the Act, the Transportation which authorize the by tion of debt within the mean- state Department of Highways to issue such ing Art. prohibition of 5§ do not violate Article Section of5 ” Appellant’s Indiana Constitution. conten- Record, p. Indiana Constitution. ... following tions are based on the facts and 8. Because the Indiana Toll Road Commis- 1) Department High- circumstances: sion was July abolished as of inde- Department ways is a state and is not an Highways agency was sub- stituted as plaintiff. pendent corporate entity in the nature of Commission; involving undertaking 2) the Indiana
the Toll Road
necessitating
appropriation
by the statute
Highways,
bonds of indebtedness.
issuing
agreement,
trust
terms
cases,
being
project
of those
and at
all
obligated maintain the toll road
issued
paid
managed and
to receive tax
obligated
the same time is
entity
agency
corporate
of all roads
monies
the maintenance
out
of the bonds
state;
payment
committed
3) the
has contracted
income of
from the
fund created
go
Agreement
7.08 of the Trust
Therefore,
special project.
funds if
toll road reve-
Legislature for
present
fund was
and the
entity
for its mainte-
nues are insufficient to
instance in
cases. This is
first
all those
operation; 4) the state itself
nance and
interpret
asked to
which we have been
and therefore fixes
operating the
sepa
is no
where there
revenues,
bonded indebtedness
toll
and if there are not suffi-
*4
the state of
bonds,
but where
corporate entity
rate
pay
completion
cient revenues
the
special
managing
itself
agree-
the trust
obligated
the state is
from a
albeit
issuing
and
project
for
needed
request
ment
submit
helpful prece
and, 5)
Among
fund.
Legislature;
special
it is not
funds
Hous
Steup v. Indiana
review are
obligations
show that the bond
dents for
sufficient to
(1980)
Authority,
designated
to be
from a
Finance
paid
ing
Welsh, (1962) 242
v.
by
fund created
the revenues received
Orbison
N.E.2d
¡the
v.
obligor
Book
view of the fact that
N.E.2d
Commission,
corporate
(1958)
enti-
238 Ind.
independent
Building
bonds is not an
Office
itself.
ty but is the state of Indiana
and Ennis
N.E.2d
231 Ind.
Highway
Highways
contends
687.
department
issuing
is a
entity
whether the
corporate
Constitution,
independent
of the state or an
10, 5 of the Indiana
Art.
§
entity is immaterial to a determination
as fol-
reads
controversy,
heart of this
whether
constitute debt of
the bonds
lows:
5, of
Art. 10
meaning
state within
any
law shall authorize
“No
statute,
the Indiana Constitution since
State,
contracted,
except
on behalf
them-
trust
and the bonds
agreement,
casual
meet
following
cases: To
selves,
paid from a
provide
they
will be
revenue;
inter-
deficits
by
fund created
the revenues of
Debt;
invasion,
to repel
on the State
est
toll road.
insurrection, or,
hostilities be
if
suppress
threatened,
de-
public
for the
provide
always
This
deemed
Court has
fense.”
self-re
prudent
necessary
and
to exercise
con
upon
straint
called
to review the
when
Ennis,
the Indi-
found that
this Court
always
a
We must
stitutionality of
statute.
commis-
was a
ana Toll
duty
remember that while we have
pur-
the state created for
sion
constitution, we are nevertheless
guard the
corporate
body
pose and was also
both
Therefore,
legislature.
a court
not a
Ennis, supra, 231
in the state.
politic
is clothed
every
upon
statute
review
N.E.2d at 693.
Ind. at
presumption
constitutionality,
that,
Chap-
under Section
noted
further
clearly
until
presumption
such
continues
Acts,
of the 1951
ter 281
contrary.
by
showing
overcome
for all
be reimbursed
Commission would
206, 209,
Majors,
Sidle
expended:
overcoming
N.E.2d
766. The burden
toll road
study
any
“...
chal
presumption
placed upon
engi-
and to use
project
or
lenger to
statute.
Id.
forces, including con-
neering and other
engineers,
engineers and traffic
sulting
previously interpreted
We
Art.
have
study,
effecting such
purpose
5 of
in cases
the Indiana Constitution
expenses
all such
incurred
corporate entity issuing the bonds
chairman of the
highway
commis-
long
so
as payment of the
bonds is
prior
sion
to the issuance of toll road
from the special
by operation
fund created
revenue
paid
bonds ...
shall be
by the
project.
We believe this to
abe
chairman
charged
to the appropriate
narrower interpretation of the language of
”
project
toll road
projects....
Ennis than was
intended
the Court. We
Id. at
108 N.E.2d at
interpret
provide
Ennis to
fund doctrine is applicable when the sepa-
The Court felt that such study and use of
rate fund is managed
and controlled
the State Highway
personnel
separate corporate entity such as the Toll
was a proper cost of the toll road and
Road Commission in
though
Ennis. Even
properly connected with its construction.
there were not separate corporate entities
Finally, the Court determined whether or
in all
municipal
Ennis,
cases cited in
not the issuance of bonds for the toll road
Court,
through
opinions
later
involving
project
was in violation of Art.
5 of
authorities,
commissions and
made it clear
the state constitution.
It was held that the
it did not
sepa-
intend to hold that a
issuance of the bonds did not create a debt
rate corporate entity was not necessary in
of the state since no state tax monies were
complying
with the mandate of Art.
5§
to be used to pay the revenue bonds. The
of the Indiana
regarding
Constitution
in-
Court stated:
debtedness of the State.
“Bonds which are
paid
to be
solely from
*5
the revenue collected from a project have
Book v.
Building
State Office
Commis
been
times,
discussed
sion,
court many
(1958)
120,
273,
238 Ind.
149 N.E.2d
and have been held not to create a debt
a legislative
involved
act creating a com
of the municipal corporation involved, un mission to
building.
build a state office
1,
der
13,
Section Article
of the Constitu
The Commission was authorized to issue
tion of Indiana. Property Owners, Inc. v.
and sell interest-bearing State Office Build
City of
(1952),
78,
Anderson
231 Ind.
107 ing revenue debentures and for the purpose
3;
N.E.2d
Edwards v. Housing Authority
interest,
paying
of
the principal and
City
of
of
(1939),
330,
Muncie
215 Ind.
19 Commission was authorized to enter into
741;
N.E.2d
Mfg.
Letz
Co. v. Public Ser
agreements with various state agencies for
vice
(1936),
Commission of Ind.
210 Ind.
occupancy
the use and
building.
of the
467,
194;
4 N.E.2d
Underwood v. Fair
This Court compared
legislative
lan
banks,
Co., (1933),
Morse &
316,
205 Ind.
guage
language
used Book to the
used in
185 N.E.
Bennett v. Spencer County
the Toll
(Ennis)
Road Act
Toll
Bridge
(1938),
Comm.
520,
213 Ind.
13 Bridge
(Indiana
Act
Bridge
State Toll
Com
547,
N.E.2d
supra; Voss v. Waterloo
Minor,
mission v.
236 Ind.
139
(1904),
Water Co.
163 Ind.
71 N.E.
445)
N.E.2d
and stated:
208; Jefferson
Twp.
School
v. Jefferson
“It seems to us that
if the above lan-
Twp. Bldg.
(1937),
S.
Co.
212 Ind.
a
guage in the Toll Road Act created
N.E.2d
Fox v. City of Bicknell
corporation for a
and the
public purpose,
(1923),
193 Ind.
“Since Commission is nance body separate of Indiana act involved was legislative 1215. The Act, corporate capacity, in its sovereign Housing Authority Finance purchasers proposed (Burns Supp. debentures et seq. 5-20-1-1 upon must the revenues derived from rely Supp.), which now found in the building income from rentals housing suitable provide was enacted to payment and the retire- interest of Indiana. low and income residents middle due.” they ment the bonds as become was similar Authority This Court found created in nature to the commissions Id. at at Road, Ennis, su the Indiana Toll construct Orbison, supra, involved the creation Bridge, Indiana pra; the Indiana Toll the Indiana Port Commission. consider- Comm’n, Bridge supra; the State Of ing appellant’s contention that the act *6 Book, supra; fice and an Indiana Building, authorized an the contraction of unauthor- Orbison, held port, supra. We then that ized on behalf of the state in contra- a agency a nor Authority was “neither state vention Art. 5 of the Indiana Con- § corpo a private corporation” separate but stitution, the Orbison court held: instrumentality rate or entity which is an ques “This Court has had previously is state agency although tion before it involving cases 1218. sovereign its Id. at capacity. state in Act, Bridge Toll Act and au- Building the State cited the above cases as Steup Office then Act,4 cases, appropria- and these thority proposition statutes almost identical in language, public were held not to tions advanced commissions obligation create debt or an the state. did not create purposes projects and will be noted that Port at 1219. of the state. Id. Ste- indebtedness Act quoted, expressly 5-20-l-16(a) above up further cited Ind.Code § port states that the revenue bonds issued cre- Authority may that the provided which thereunder shall not constitute a debt or or re- capital ate and establish one more pledge of credit of the of any state or re- serve funds to secure notes or bonds payable subdivision shall be 5-20-1-2(10) ferred to defined in and § solely from the funds for their 5-20-l-8(a) authorized the obligations. payment as authorized therein. Authority issue bonds or notes or a com-
In view of the effectuate foregoing provisions carry bination thereof out and pre- powers provided statute and the we and purposes have and and viously expressed that Port and interest such bonds principal Commis- is a corporate body separate sion from the notes would be H35 payment GIVAN, J., for such in this DeBRULER, C. J., con- chapter. 5-20-l-7(a) expressly provided cur.
that the Authority’s obligations do not con- PRENTICE, J., debt,
stitute liability, separate or dissents with obligation of the state. held Steup that since there was no opinion HUNTER, J., in which concurs. recourse the state and its J., HUNTER, dissents with opin- fund to Authority’s meet the obligations, the act creating Authority did not cre- ion.
ate state indebtedness and therefore did not PRENTICE, Justice, dissenting. contravene Art. 5 of the Indiana Con- stitution. Id. at 1219. “It spirit has been said that it is the Ennis, Orbison, Book,
In
Steup,
which vivifies and the letter which killeth.”
there was both a separate entity operating
Bidwell, (1901)
Downes v.
U.S.
special
project and issuing the bonds of
S.Ct.
Another exception has ed That the very proscription exceptions. violation of a similar with debt and by been cities and towns amount of employed one is authorized 1 of are respect Article our Con- the other exceptions provided Section majority the is- stitution. In cases cited immaterial to emergency events is obligations is- opinion, financing we have sue, held or not the which whether municipalities viola- by sued were not obligating such operate can without scheme constitution, were they tive of since general revenues. project only
payable from revenues to be constitu- I would hold the statute revenues. and not from trial court. tional and affirm the to be sought protect- and property revenues not by proscription, although ed debt HUNTER, J., opin- concurs by the veil of insulated from ion. insulated, separate legal entity, were nevertheless, by exculpatory language HUNTER, Justice, dissenting. instruments. ma- respectfully dissent from I must concentrated, to has majority by ignored has been opinion. Much jority degree, from which upon funds en to its conclusion majority route question con- payable; bonds are but the seq. (Burns et 8-15-2-1 Ind.Code § stitutionality by must be answered not extent “to the is unconstitutional Supp.) they of the funds from which determination the Indiana grants that it authorization are a determination toll road Highways issue ” which are not they payable. funds from su- Opinion, Majority revenue bonds .... they paid ever Whether or are pra. constitution, moment, as long under the so instance, ac- majority has not For from payment compelled gen- cannot be mandate knowledged legislature’s eral revenues. “Toll 8-15-2-2, entitled supra, Ind.Code § that, pointed It is immaterial as out of liabili- road revenue bonds—Limitation uti- the state has heretofore majority, ty”: entity lized and excul- separate legal both a under revenue bonds issued “Toll road thusly in- patory language doubly has not be chapter shall of this provisions however, that, believe, sulated itself. I the state a debt of deemed constitute two, mandate clear between the or a thereof any political or of subdivision exculpatory language contained the stat- the state and credit of pledge of faith ute lan- consequent, exculpatory clear subdivision, but any or of guage in the debt instrument of more payable solely such bonds shall be importance spe- employment than payment for their pledged the funds cially separate legal which entity created chapter, unless such by this authorized might regarded designed as a mere ruse be by refunding are refunded state to mislead the investors. chap- issued pay- ter, bonds shall refunding which Lastly, appellant I note discounts their authority of those cases where munici- able chapter. by this palities lan- as authorized employed exculpatory payment have *8 on shall contain guage pro- All such revenue bonds by pointing alone out effect to the scription is the thereof a statement against authoriza- the face certain, both debt, principal of as to except tion under enumer- circumstances, interest, of the state obligation ated are proscrip- whereas Indiana, any political or subdivision against is the autho- of municipalities thereof, solely percentum, payable in two but are rization of debt excess of as au- payment, etc. for their scrutiny. pledged Such distinction will not bear funds chapter. provisions designed Both constitutional thorized this
H37
expenses
“All
in carrying
incurred
out
These declarations belie
majority’s
of this
shall
chapter
notion that
seq.,
8-15-2-1 et
§
state,
payable solely
supra,
from funds
creates a “debt”
upon
under
10,
that term is
authority
employed
of this
Article
chapter
nothing
Section
5, of our
Constitution.
In the context of
chapter
this
contained shall be con-
us,
cases identical
to the one before
strued to authorize
department
Court has repeatedly stated that the consti
incur indebtedness
liability
or
on behalf
tutional term
applies only
“legally
“debt”
payable
of or
any political
the state or
enforceable obligations.” Book v. State Of
subdivision thereof.”
Comm,
al,
Bldg.
120,
fice
et
238 Ind.
Nor has the majority acknowledged the ex-
148,
273, 289; accord,
149 N.E.2d
Kees v.
legislature’s
istence of the
requirement
Smith, principal
“The
of and the interest on such
Protsman v. Jefferson-Craig Consol. School
bonds
road revenue
shall be
[toll
bonds]
Corp., (1953) 231 Ind.
1138 by this Court argument rejected su
Ennis v. State 1952, 311, 337, Au pra, Housing Ind. N.E.2d Finance Steup 231 108 v. Indiana 699; Keehn, 1948, 687, 1215, 400 Loomis v. Ill. 1219: 402 N.E.2d thority, 371; 337, 341, 368, McArthur v. “Furthermore, legislature appro may the 337, 1955, 328, Smallwood, Ark. 225 281 fund. reserve capital funds to the priate 434; 428, Earle, supra, v. Kelley S.W.2d re However, the no funds can flow into 337, 1937, 347, 140, 190 A. Pa. is an until there serve fund unless and Caldwell, 1945, ex Watson v. rel. legislature. the by appropriation 855, 618, 621, Fla. Shef So.2d ap require such but does not Act allows Bldg. v. Authority, field State School Housing Finance In Utah propriations. 1952, 575, 208 Ga. State ex S.E.2d Utah, Smart, P.2d Agency 15, Giessel, rel. 271 Wis. Thomson Court stat Supreme the Utah Id., 72 N.W.2d 590.” at ed: 139, 149 at 283-4. N.E.2d “ ap- future legislation requires ‘If the recognized As Book expressly this Court in obligations the defray to propriations the are two constitutional as it be invalid Agency would implic- equal weight, majority force and where, credit, lending the state’s itly aspect of In its overrules that Book. here, appropria- it allows future merely place, gain wholly arbitrary we distinc- such, creates requiring tions without tion, albeit without rationale. obligation upon the binding no pursuant is to Article noted result in a debt does not and therefore agreement 7.08 Section trust exe- of the state’s lending of the state or duty is parties, following cuted credit.’ imposed Department Highways: on the the Act not create “We hold that does “If, fix, despite use of to best efforts therefore, and, does state indebtedness charge charges collect tolls and Art. 5.” Ind.Const. not contravene to meet the adequate use Requirement Net Revenue Likewise, obvious- agreement here trust above, the [Department of part no on ly creates charge unable Highways] is collect legislature. charges, such level of tolls and the Com- majori- Steup fallacy bears out the appropriate mission at the covenants that sepa- of a ty’s that the existence insistence it will report propose time times dispositive entity rate corporate Budget Agency there be what a “debt” determination of constitutes budget appropria- included in each bill an meaning within the of Article Section Legislature case, may appropri- legislature either Operating Expenses sufficient bonds. money support ate the revenue period budget Toll Road for the however, is significant, whether What is but not excess of that amount which ap- to make such an legislature required permit application will of additional Here, requirement ex- propriation. the Revenue Fund so that amounts from ists, obligated. general fund nor is the state will meet the Net Reve- the Commission his added.) explained in Requirement.” (Emphasis nue As Prentice has Justice sepa- opinion, that renders the dissenting emphasized, provision requires As device, a entity rate artificial corporate Highways “propose” significance in the de- without mere “veil” legislature funds if revenues appropriate of whether a “debt” within termination inadequate requirements to meet the been has meaning of Article Section agreement. Although position the trust identi- court reached the created. The trial majority, is not American embraced finding 8-15- Ind.Code § cal conclusion Company National Bank and Trust has ar- unconstitutional. seq., supra, 2-1 was not et gued provision that the establishes ex- jurisdictions majority vast of a on of the state. And the part istence
1139
have
the question
During
1840s,
which
confronted
before
the 1830s and
the infancy
us have
same
reached the
conclusion.
statehood,
of our
state government
our
had
Those states have
the financing
held that
embarked
bevy
on a
works
special state project through
bonds to be
projects
to achieve
improve-
internal
solely from
paid
the revenues of the
ments
necessary
deemed
to sustain the
project, and which
obligate
neither
state’s cultural and commercial growth.
general
pledge
state’s
fund
nor
credit of
among
Foremost
was the con-
state,
did not violate constitutional pro-
struction of the Wabash and Erie Canal.
hibitions
indebtedness.
validi-
Bonds to finance the construction were au-
ty
“special fund” doctrine is widely
thorized
Assembly
General
recognized.
e.g., Clipson
See
v. State Board
1835,
2,
Acts
p.
c.
6. Pursuant
to the stat-
Education, (1960)
160, 123
271 Ala.
So.2d
ute, the bonds
were issued
1835 until
16; Arizona State
Comm. v.
Highway
Nel
1839,
failed;
when the market
the bonds
son, (1969)
76,
509;
105 Ariz.
459 P.2d
Cali
state
expressly obligated
and its
Toll Bridge Authority
fornia
v. Kelly, (1933)
revenues.
the state fell
Ultimately,
into
425;
7,
218 Cal.
21 P.2d
Johnson v. Mc
responsibilities
arrears on its financial
un-
Donald, (1935)
324,
1017;
97 Colo.
49 P.2d
der the bonds and was forced to call in the
v.
Improvement
State
Florida State
Com
mission,
(1948)
230,
443;
agreement
stock and enter into an
160
34
Fla.
So.2d
Farrell v.
Regents, (Iowa
State
whereby
Board
bondholders
“canal stock”
1970)
533;
179
Meagher
N.W.2d
v. Com
issued,
only
from the revenues
ex
Unemployment
rel.
Comp.
monwealth
of the canal
and unsecured
the state.
Comm., (1947)
289,
35;
305
203
Ky.
S.W.2d
Bates, The
generally,
Borrowing
See
Power
v.
Schureman
State
Under the “Casual Debt” Proviso of the
62;
(1966)
609, 141
377 Mich.
N.W.2d
Nafta
8
(1933).
Constitution
Ind.L.J. 341
v. King, (1960)
lin
257 Minn.
majority’s
history
fear that
will re-
301;
N.W.2d
rel. Dragstedt
State ex
v.
peat itself—that
this state’s financial condi-
Education, (1936)
State Board of
103 Mont.
again”
tion will
“once
plunged
be
into
330;
62 P.2d
Capitol
ex rel.
Addi
debt—is
Unlike the state-se-
unfounded.
Bldg.
tion
(1935)
Comm. v. Connelly,
cured bonds issued from 1835 to 1839 to
1097;
Jones,
N.M.
46 P.2d
State v.
(1946)
54;
finance
of the Wabash
N.D.
construction
Applica
23 N.W.2d
Oklahoma Planning
Canal,
and Resources Erie
the toll road revenue
Bd., (1949)
415;
201 Okla.
203 P.2d
very
language
legislative
authorizing
Meier,
Moses
148 Or.
35 P.2d
them,
specifically
issuance of
“are not
Byrnes, (1951)
State v.
219 S.C.
and do not con-
state”
Giessel, (1955)
S.E.2d
271 Wis.
stitute “a debt of the State of Indiana or of
72 N.W.2d
ex
rel. Wyoming
any political
pledge
thereof or a
subdivision
Herschler,
Farm Loan
Bd. v.
Wyo.,
of the faith
and credit
said State or of
assume its Here, has legislature
certain course. for
merely responsibility opera- passed
tion of the toll road from High- to the revenue-producing
ways. powers unchanged; responsibilities have remained PITTS, Appellant, Arthur special fund- us issue before involves v. completion spe- of a ing mechanism the of all this public project. cial The wisdom Indiana, Appellee. STATE question; only constitu- for us to 781S188. No. is at issue. tionality of Indiana. Supreme Court it is es resolving question, In well tablished that the statute comes before 27, 1982. Sept. with a of consti presumption Court clothed prove otherwise tutionality. burden party challenging
rests statute. Ind., (1981)
Dague Piper Corp., v. Aircraft Inc., 207; Texaco,
418 N.E.2d Short v. 625; Ind.,
(1980) Johnson v. St. 406 N.E.2d Inc., (1980) Hospital,
Vincent 585; v. Ind. Majors,
N.E.2d Sidle Pavach, (1975) Allen v. N.E.2d 335 N.E.2d Chaffin Ind.
Nicosia, (1974)
City Bryant, of Aurora N.E.2d 141.
Here, that burden has not been satisfied. validity
Where exist doubts
statute, those doubts must be resolved constitutionality.
favor Id. statute’s respect, agree majority I with the always “We must remember that while constitution,
we duty guard have the legis-
we nevertheless a court and not a Majority supra.
lature.” Ulti- Opinion,
mately, is in reason fact the foremost my join majority. refusal
It is my belief that a case
importance interest, involving it does non- legislature’s view of statute’s
binding effect on reve- the state’s