May 24, 2012

Indiana Appeals Court Finds Appeal of Ordinance Violation Not Moot Even After Fine Is Paid

Barnes & Thornburg LLP - a national law firm of more than 550 professionals
Mark J. Crandley
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Administrative & Regulatory / Civil Procedure / Litigation / Trial Practice / Real Estate / Tax
Indiana
Printer-friendly
Email this Article
Download PDF
Reprints & Permissions

The Indiana Court of Appeals has determined that a challenge to an alleged ordinance violation can go forward even when the alleged violator pays the fine imposed by the municipality.  In Dempsey v. Department of Metropolitan Development, a landowner was cited for violating the Unsafe Building Code.  The landowner paid the fine in order to prevent the property from being sold at a tax sale.  The Court determined that this preventative action could not moot the challenge to the imposition of the fee in the first place.

The opinion can be found online at: http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08161101jgb.pdf

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Mark J. Crandley
Partner

Mark Crandley is a partner in the Litigation Department of Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Indianapolis, Indiana office. Mr. Crandley has a diverse practice that concentrates on appeals, municipal and constitutional law, employee benefits, probate and guardianship matters as well as general commercial litigation.

mark.crandley@btlaw.com
317-261-7924
www.btlaw.com

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.