Board of Zoning Appeals v. Roll

Indiana Court of Appeals

Board of Zoning Appeals v. Roll

95 N.E.2d 713, 120 Ind. App. 671, 1950 Ind. App. LEXIS 231

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 21, 1950

DocketNo. 18,058

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 N.E.2d 713 (Board of Zoning Appeals v. Roll) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Board of Zoning Appeals v. Roll, 95 N.E.2d 713, 120 Ind. App. 671, 1950 Ind. App. LEXIS 231 (Ind. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Wiltrout, C. J.

— The appellees, by their verified petition filed in the court below, sought to review by certiorari a decision of the appellant board of zoning appeals granting a variance.

In accordance with the procedure prescribed by statute, Acts 1947, ch. 174, p. 571; Burns’ 1933 (1949 Supp.), §§ 53-701 to 53-794, the court directed the board to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue. The board filed its demurrer to the petition. The demurrer was overruled and the board ruled to answer. It failed and refused to plead further. Thereupon the court rendered judgment that the decision of the board be reversed and its order granting the variance be set aside, annulled, cancelled and reversed. Appellant assails the order overruling the demurrer as being erroneous.

The statute, Burns’ 1933 (1949 Supp.), §53-785, provides in part: “If such board fails to show to the satisfaction of the court that a writ should not issue then the court may allow a writ of certiorari directed to the board of zoning appeals. The writ shall prescribe the time in which a return shall be made to it.” Burns’ 1933 (1949 Supp.), § 53-788, then provides for a deter[673]*673mination of the matter and the rendering of judgment after the return has been made.

The statutory procedure was not followed in this case, and there was no basis for the judgment at the time it was rendered.

We do not believe that we should decide at this time whether the court committed error in overruling the demurrer. It is possible that when the case is determined in accordance with the statutory procedure appellant will not have been harmed by the ruling, if it be erroneous.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Royse, J., not participating.

Note. — Reported in 95 N. E. 2d 713.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wiltrout, C. J.

— The appellees, by their verified petition filed in the court below, sought to review by certiorari a decision of the appellant board of zoning appeals granting a variance.

In accordance with the procedure prescribed by statute, Acts 1947, ch. 174, p. 571; Burns’ 1933 (1949 Supp.), §§ 53-701 to 53-794, the court directed the board to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue. The board filed its demurrer to the petition. The demurrer was overruled and the board ruled to answer. It failed and refused to plead further. Thereupon the court rendered judgment that the decision of the board be reversed and its order granting the variance be set aside, annulled, cancelled and reversed. Appellant assails the order overruling the demurrer as being erroneous.

The statute, Burns’ 1933 (1949 Supp.), §53-785, provides in part: “If such board fails to show to the satisfaction of the court that a writ should not issue then the court may allow a writ of certiorari directed to the board of zoning appeals. The writ shall prescribe the time in which a return shall be made to it.” Burns’ 1933 (1949 Supp.), § 53-788, then provides for a deter[673]*673mination of the matter and the rendering of judgment after the return has been made.

The statutory procedure was not followed in this case, and there was no basis for the judgment at the time it was rendered.

We do not believe that we should decide at this time whether the court committed error in overruling the demurrer. It is possible that when the case is determined in accordance with the statutory procedure appellant will not have been harmed by the ruling, if it be erroneous.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Royse, J., not participating.

Note. — Reported in 95 N. E. 2d 713.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 N.E.2d 713, 120 Ind. App. 671, 1950 Ind. App. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-zoning-appeals-v-roll-indctapp-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack