Court Opinion

ID: 9516183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:36:39.387195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:50.847142
License: Public Domain

*667
DISSENTING OPINION

Achor, J.
As stated in the majority opinion, the legislation under §27-1602, Burns’ 1948 Repl. (1959 Supp.) [being Acts 1959, ch. 289, §2, p. 719], purports to give to any city within the State of Indiana the right to initiate and create a levy authority district; provided, that such city is located within a county having a population of not less than 160,000 and no more than 180,000.
By reason of this limitation within the act, other cities of the same size and having the same problem of food control are not given the same privilege if located in counties not within the restricted population classification. In my opinion such a classification of the cities affected is arbitrary, unreasonable and unnatural and not based on any real or substantial difference as related to the purpose of legislation. Therefore, in my opinion this provision of the Acts is in violation of the constitutional requirement of Art. 4, §§22 and 23 of the Constitution of Indiana, which provides that laws shall not be special or local in nature, and shall be general and uniform in operation.
In the case of Caesar v. DeVault, Twp. Trustee, et al. (1957), 236 Ind. 487, 492, 141 N. E. 2d 338, this court stated the pertinent rule of law as follows:
“ ‘Under the Constitution of this State, cities and towns may be classified upon the basis of differences in population, and laws applicable to a single class may be regarded as general in their character, .and not local or special. But the classification must be natural and reasonable and not arbitrary. It must be founded upon real and substantial differences in the local situation and necessities of the class of cities and towns to tvhich it applies. Where such a classification excludes from its operation cities and towns differing in no material particular from those included in a class, the statute can not be upheld. . . .’” (Our emphasis.) School *668City of Rushville v. Hayes (1904), 162 Ind. 193, 200, 70 N. E. 134, 137.
See also: Railroad Com., etc. v. Grand Trunk, etc. R. Co. (1913), 179 Ind. 255, 100 N. E. 852; Perry Civil Twp. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (1943), 222 Ind. 84, 51 N. E. 2d 371.
Note. — Reported in 168 N. E. 2d 208.