noting that in interpreting a provision of the Indiana Constitution, "we seek the common understanding of both those who framed it and those who ratified it"
How later courts described this case
- noting that in interpreting a provision of the Indiana Constitution, "we seek the common understanding of both those who framed it and those who ratified it"
- reviewing circuit court’s (i.e., court of general jurisdiction) determination that county economic development income tax was unconstitutional
- upholding statute allowing Tippecanoe County to increase certain taxes because it was the only county subject to Superfund liability under federal environmental laws
- the court noting it would not limit its consideration to the statute's language but also consider the circumstances surrounding the act in question in determining its constitutionality under Section 23
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SULLIVAN, Justice,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result of Justice Dickson's opinion. However, I would hold that the population-based categories contained in the statute fulfill the requirements for a valid general law set by a long line of decisions by this court. See, eg., North Twp. Advisory Bd. v. Mamala, 490 N.E.2d 725, 727 (Ind.1986); State Election Bd. v. Bartolomei, 434 N.E.2d 74, 77 (Ind.1982); Dortch v. Lugar, 255 Ind. 545, 552-53 , 266 N.E.2d 25, 31-32 (1971); Graves v. City of Muncie, 255 Ind. 360, 362 , 264 N.E.2d 607, 609 (1970); Bailey v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Auth. Dist., 240 Ind. 401, 408-409 , 166 N.E.2d 520, 523-24 (1960); Bally v. Guilford Twp. Sch. Corp., 284 Ind. 278 , 279-80, 126 N.E.2d 13, 16-17 (1955), Groves v. Board of Comm'rs, 209 Ind. 371, 375-76 , 199 N.E. 137, 140 (1936) (citing additional cases). In Dorich v. Lugar, we upheld the constitutionality of a statute using population-based categories to create Unigov. What's good for Marion County ought be good for Tippecanoe County as well.
DeBRULER, J., joins.