# City of Evansville Ex Rel. Department of Redevelopment v. Reising

> Indiana Court of Appeals · December 20, 1989 · 547 N.E.2d 1106

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9721011

## Case

- **Full name:** CITY OF EVANSVILLE, Indiana on Behalf of Its DEPARTMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. O. Gene REISING; Auditor and Treasurer of Vanderburgh County, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** December 20, 1989
- **Citations:** 547 N.E.2d 1106; 1989 Ind. App. LEXIS 1294; 1989 WL 154160
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baker
- **Judges:** Ratliff, Shields, Baker
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9721011

## Opinion text

BAKER, Judge,
concurring.
Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, I am not so convinced that *1116 federal law precludes Mr. Reising’s causes of action.
As noted by the majority, our supreme court has excluded similar objections and defenses as that proffered by the condemnee in this case. See Indianapolis Water Co. v. Lux (1946), 224 Ind. 125 , 64 N.E.2d 790 ; Sisters of Providence of St. Mary’s of the Woods v. Tower View Coal Co. (1926), 198 Ind. 645 , 154 N.E. 659 . In both of these cases, the intent and motive of the condemnor was attacked. Here, Mr. Reising seeks to do the same.
In the event our supreme court were to allow a collateral attack of a condemnation proceeding, I see no compelling prudential consideration to preclude the courts of this state from scrutinizing the City’s actions for violations of federal law. This is especially true when public funds are utilized to dispossess a segment of our citizenry from their property.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9721011. Public record. Not legal advice.