Court Opinion

ID: 9741072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:49:05.221863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:22.117003
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION

Gonas, J.
Appellees, Adler and Adler filed their petition, which was referred to the Marion County Plan Commission, requesting the rezoning, and the County Commissioners adopted an ordinance “recommended” by the Plan Commission. Appellants then, by certiorari *696procedure, attempted, in the Marion Circuit Court to challenge the legality of the “recommendation.” They prosecuted this appeal from a decision adverse to them.
We recently held that such a “recommendation” was not a “decision” within the meaning of Burns Ann. Stat. §53-755 and that there is no statutory authority for its review by certiorari and that the Marion Circuit Court does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of such an attempted review. Wright v. Marion County Plan Commission et al. (1960), 130 Ind. App. 203, 163 N. E. 2d 259.
Appellees cite, as contra to the holding of the Wright case, supra, the following cases: State ex rel. Hardin et al. v. Mar. S. C., Niblack, J. (1956), 235 Ind. 604, 135 N. E. 2d 517; State ex rel. Mar. C. Pl. Comm. v. Mar. S. C. et al. (1956), 235 Ind. 607, 135 N. E. 2d 516; and Hirschman et al. v. Marion County Plan Commission et al. (1958), 128 Ind. App. 520, 146 N. E. 2d 277.
In none of these cited cases did the Supreme Court pass upon the question of whether a “recommendation” of a plan commission such as that involved here-, was a “decision” within the meaning of Burns Stat. §53-755.
In Hirschman et al v. Marion County Plan Commission et al., supra, the question was presented as to whether the recommendation of the Plan Commission was a “decision” subject to review by certiorari.
The appellees Plan Commission and Board of County Commissioners did not file a brief and we had only to consider whether the appellants had made a prima facie showing of error. We determined that prima facie at least, the Marion Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter. In Wright v. Marion County Plan Commission, supra, we did not follow such prima facie. *697determination. I adhere to the holding of the Wright case.
Note. — Reported in 174 N. E. 2d 757.