YEs, I mentioned that provision Sec. 22 - one of Bloomington's claims and "special legislation" - of the Indiana Constitution There have been log rolling cases. A challenge to the state's first Products Liability Defense Law following the 1978 session was a case on that point. Indiana SC upheld the enactment even though it was the products bill put into a bill creating a new judgeship in Washington County.
Anybody know who's behind the no-annexation bill?
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
Have you read it? The newly enacted law? I cut and pasted the entire thing here for you and others. Read it carefully.
The language says that any new plan prior 2022 that has any of the old land with in it is prohibited until after that date. Do we differ on that point? It doe have to be the same set of parcels. Any parcel in the old plans put into a new plan gives rise to the 5 year ban. Bloomington needs to think long and hard before bringing the suit except they have the taxpayers' money to fund the action
Edit - typos
We did differ on that point, until just now, since you have changed your claim to match mine.
It was really a very minor error of omission. I'm surprised I bothered correcting you or that you bothered getting upset. C'est la vie! Now, back to meatier issues, can you point me to Indiana court rulings on Sec. 19? I'd very much like to read them. You mentioned one above, but didn't give the name of the case.
