Court Opinion

ID: 9505384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:04:12.439507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:25.299942
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Justice,
concurring in result.
In this case, IDEM asks us not to reach the merits on the ground that Twin Eagle has not exhausted its administrative remedies. Indeed, IDEM has not even determined whether the waters on Twin Eagle's property are subject to regulation. I agree with IDEM's position and would hold that the trial court should have dismissed Twin Eagle's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court rejects IDEM's argument and proceeds to the merits. But Twin Eagle's victory on this issue turns out to be Pyrrhic because the Court resolves the merits in IDEM's favor.
Given this result, Twin Eagle might well second-guess its decision to litigate first. If Twin Eagle had successfully persuaded IDEM not to regulate (or if IDEM had decided not to prosecute had Twin Eagle proceeded without applying for a permit), Twin Eagle would not have received the unwelcome news the Court delivers to it today. One can envision a wide range of other compromises between IDEM and Twin Eagle more favorable to Twin Eagle than today's decision.
*850Our decisions are replete with reasons supporting the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies. See, eg., State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs v. Ispat Inland, Inc., 784 N.E.2d 477, 482-88 (Ind.2003); Fratus v. Marion Cmty. Schs. Bd. of Trs., 749 N.E.2d 40, 46-47 (Ind.2001); Town Council of New Harmony v. Parker, 726 N.E.2d 1217, 1224 (Ind.2000), am. on reh'g on other grounds, 737 N.E.2d 719 (Ind.2000); Austin Lakes Joint Venture v. Avon Utils. Inc., 648 N.E.2d 641, 644-45 (Ind.1995). The result of today's case illustrates one not often given-the doctrine's benefit to the party (arguably) subject to a regulatory agency's Jurisdiction. Running the administrative gauntlet first provides such a party a much greater range of options and compromises than does litigation alone.
SHEPARD, C.J., joing.