Court Opinion

ID: 9718217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:19:00.543071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:57.972086
License: Public Domain

Dissenting
Jackson, J.
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion herein and dissent thereto.
Appellant admits that neither the 1965 Act (Acts 1965 ch. 214) nor any act prior thereto granted municipal corporations the power to enact ordinances in the so-called “Open Occupancy” field. Under the 1965 Act and those prior thereto the State had preempted that field. Without preemption the ordinance in question was unenforcible as the cities and towns had authority to pass ordinances only in those fields specifically authorized by statute. In the case of the ordinance in question no such specific statutory authority existed.
In 1967 the legislature saw fit to change its policy in the so-called “Open Occupancy” field by the enactment of Acts 1967 ch. 276 (being §40-2308, 40-2317a Burns’ 1967 Cum. Supp.). By the terms thereof said §40-2317a specifically authorized such ordinances as the one in question.
The appellee’s Motion to Dismiss the appeal as moot should be sustained as the ordinance in question was enacted prior to 1967.
NOTE. — Reported in 238 N, E. 2d 17,