# Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. v. Dekalb County Surveyor's Office

> Indiana Court of Appeals · July 18, 2006 · 850 N.E.2d 957

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9520830

## Case

- **Full name:** IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC., Cedar Creek Wildlife Project, Inc., Appellants-Petitioners, v. DEKALB COUNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Appellees-Respondents
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** July 18, 2006
- **Citations:** 850 N.E.2d 957; 2006 Ind. App. LEXIS 1360; 2006 WL 2034593
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Mathias
- **Judges:** Barnes, Friedlander, Mathias
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9520830

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding the materials submitted were sufficient because the record should include “all that is necessary in order for the reviewing court to accurately assess the challenged agency action”
- finding the purposes of the AOPA statutes governing the agency record on judicial review “are clear” and determining limited documentation submitted as agency record was sufficient to decide the appeal
- noting that “[rjegardless of whether the agency record was timely filed in this case, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider a petition for judicial review challenging a final agency decision”

## Opinion text

MATHIAS, Judge,
dissenting.
As I cannot conclude that Walton and Cedar Creek presented "an adequate agency record" for purposes of judicial review under AOPA, I respectfully dissent.
The majority has determined that Walton and Cedar Creek filed the "essential" items for judicial review of the DNR's decision. This determination is unnecessary-the General Assembly has already defined which items are essential for that review in Indiana Code section 4-21.5-3-38.
Indiana Code section 4-21.5-83-38 requires that agencies maintwain an official record of each proceeding under Indiana *969 Code 4-21.5-5. Moreover, the agency record consisting of the items enumerated in Indiana Code section 4-21.5-3-83(b) "constitutes the exelusive basis for agency action in proceedings under this chapter and for judicial review of a proceeding under this chapter." Ind.Code § 4-21.5-3-33(c). Finally, Indiana Code section 4-21.5-5-13(a) requires a petitioner to transmit to the court "the original or a certified copy of the agency record[,]" not merely those portions of the record which the petitioner deems relevant.
I respectfully disagree with the majority's conclusion that this case is distinguishable from Indiana State Board of Education v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation, 813 N.E.2d 330 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). That opinion did nothing more or less than apply the clear language contained in the statutes governing judicial review of agency action. I do not believe that doing so constitutes an "overly strict reading," nor do I believe that the requirement of filing a complete agency record presents a trap or technicality.
"[WJhere a narrow statutory remedy is given, the time and manner of asserting such right must be strictly followed[.]" Shipshewana Convenience Corp. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of LaGrange County, 656 N.E.2d 812, 814 (Ind.1995). This court has held that the timely filing of the agency record is a condition precedent to a court acquiring jurisdiction to consider a petition for judicial review. See Brownsburg, 813 N.E.2d at 333 ; Clendening v. Ind. Family & Soc. Servs. Admin., 715 N.E.2d 903, 904 (Ind.Ct.App.1999); Park v. Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind., 656 N.E.2d 1176, 1179 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied. Likewise, I believe the filing of the agency record must be complete, as required by Indiana Code section 4-21.5-5-18, in order for a court to acquire jurisdiction.
For all of these reasons, I would affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition for judicial review.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9520830. Public record. Not legal advice.