Court Opinion

ID: 9721011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:46:34.970275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:22.877437
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
concurring.
Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, I am not so convinced that *1116federal 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.