Court Opinion

ID: 9713498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:16:18.141317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:19.031457
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring:
Although I concur in the result obtained by the majority, I take issue with much of what is said and implied in the conclusion-ary portion of the decision relating to Issue Four.
My colleagues attempt, in large measure, to support their view in this respect by case law involving judicial review of quasi-judicial administrative decisions. It must be kept in mind that the administrative rule and regulation making authority is legislative in nature — not judicial. For this reason I disagree with the implication of those foreign decisions which imply otherwise or which sanction judicial oversight of the reasonableness of administrative legislation.1
Wallace v. Feehan (1934) 206 Ind. 522, 190 N.E. 438, cited by the majority, is truly a review of quasi-legislative action by an administrative agency. The Indiana Supreme Court, however, reviewed the “reasonableness” of the regulations there involved as a matter of law — not as a matter of fact. The Court stated:
“In determining the question of fact as to the existence of pestilence or disease tending to destroy sources or supplies of food and the necessity for the adoption of reasonable and appropriate measures, the agency, board, or department thus created, though not judicial, is called upon to exercise judgment or discretion which, unless it appears to be purely arbitrary, is not the subject of judicial review.” 206 Ind. at 533, 190 N.E. at 443.
See also Department of Insurance v. Motors Insurance Corp. (1956) 236 Ind. 1, 138 N.E.2d 157.
In sum, I disassociate myself from any implication that our decision today grants carte blanc authorization for judicial intrusion into the quasi-legislative function of the executive branch of government. In this respect I hasten to add that I do not retreat from the views and reservations I expressed in City of Evansville v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. (2d Dist. 1975) Ind.App., 339 N.E.2d 562 at 595-596.

. Quite a different matter is presented by judicial review of “reasonableness” as that term is material to a determination whether the administrative rule or regulation is within the scope of authority lawfully delegated by the Iegisla-ture, with sufficient standards and guide-lines. See Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. McShane (2d Dist. 1976) Ind.App., 354 N.E.2d 259.