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
SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with Justice Dickson that the statute under challenge is adequately justified as a permissible special statute under Article I, Section 28.
On the other hand, I conclude that the Lafayette amendment to the general county economic development income tax is a "local or special law .... [plroviding for the assessment and collection of taxes for State, county, township, or road purposes...." Accordingly, I would hold it unconstitutional under Article I, Section 22.