Court Opinion

ID: 9721469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:00:12.806096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:26.154852
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
I concur except to the extent that Footnote 1 of the majority opinion implies that once an administrative agency has construed a statute, it may never change its interpretation unless the statute has been amended by the General Assembly. Such implication would require an agency to adhere to an erroneous interpretation of the law and await either a legislative or judicial correction. It is my belief that the law should encourage governmental admission of error and self-generated solutions to problems. Accordingly I take issue with the following overbroad language from Whirlpool Corp. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners (1st Dist. 1975) 167 Ind.App. 216, 338 N.E.2d 501 at 507:
“The legislature therefore must be deemed to have acquiesced in the exemption and under the guidance of Baker v. Compton, supra, such acquiescence is binding and controlling herein.”
While the fiction of legislative acquiescence may provide a tool for legal problem solving and have great persuasive effect in the courts, it should not be the only factor considered. In actuality, the doctrine of legislative acquiescence is helpful only when the earlier administrative interpretation was correct. See State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Carrier Corp., (1977) 266 Ind. 615, 365 N.E.2d 1385. It is not applicable if the earlier interpretation was in error. The seminal Indiana case, Baker v. Compton, (1965) 247 Ind. 39, 211 N.E.2d 162, 164, recognized this:
“Although the interpretation placed upon the statute by an administrative agency of the state may not be binding upon this Court if the interpretation is incorrect, such interpretation as has been made and applied in a number of previous adoptions, is entitled to considerable weight . . . . ”