Court Opinion

ID: 9741801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:02:21.440618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:26.457323
License: Public Domain

CIVIL PETITION TO TRANSFER
GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. The majority makes a persuasive argument that plaintiffs substantially complied with Ind.Code § 34-4-16.5-6 in that they sent notice to the Indiana State Highway Commission and in turn the Commission sent notice to the Attorney General. The majority nevertheless arrives at a decision which is not in keeping with the statute and which is contrary to the prior case law interpreting the statute.
In deciding this case, the Court of Appeals reviewed the case of Galovick v. State, Board of Commissioners of Montgomery Co. (1982), Ind.App., 437 N.E.2d 505 and Geyer v. City of Logansport (1977), 267 Ind. 334, 370 N.E.2d 333 and correctly held that because plaintiffs failed to send notice to the Attorney General within one hundred eighty (180) days after the occurrence, as required by the statute, the plaintiffs were barred from maintaining this cause of action against the State.
This is a matter exclusively within the province of the legislature. Subsequent to the decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeals interpreting the statute, the legislature has allowed the language to remain the same. I can only conclude that the legislature is in agreement with prior judicial interpretation that the statute should be strictly construed.
I would therefore deny transfer of this case and allow the opinion of the Court of Appeals to stand.
PIVARNIK, J., concurs.