Court Opinion

ID: 9723969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:39:43.655289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:53.470846
License: Public Domain

ROBERTSON, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the conclusion and result of the majority opinion. The fundamental issue is whether Thompson was denied due process by the State’s use of his property without just compensation, an act plainly and expressly forbidden by both the state and federal constitutions. Thompson,- in my opinion, makes a more than adequate case for redress of his loss of interest. Using the logic of Schnull v. Indianapolis Union R. Co., (1921) 190 Ind. 572, 131 N.E. 51, Thompson can legally, and should morally, be compensated for the State’s use of his money.
I would reverse the trial court.