Bridge v. Board of Zoning Appeals

381 N.E.2d 1060, 269 Ind. 525, 1978 Ind. LEXIS 807
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 3, 1978
DocketNo. 1178S250
StatusPublished

This text of 381 N.E.2d 1060 (Bridge v. Board of Zoning Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bridge v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 381 N.E.2d 1060, 269 Ind. 525, 1978 Ind. LEXIS 807 (Ind. 1978).

Opinion

Hunter, J.

— This case is before us on the petition to transfer of Ronald C. Bridge, et al., appellants, who are all landowners in the City of Fort Wayne. The only issue involved is the failure to file a second motion to correct errors and, thus, this case is governed by our recent holding in P-M Gas & Wash Co., Inc. v. Ronald Smith, b/n/f Clara Smith and Richard Smith, (1978) 268 Ind. 297, 375 N.E.2d 592.

The Fort Wayne Board of Zoning Appeals granted Cecil Excavating a special use permit for sand and gravel extraction. Several surrounding landowners (appellants) contested this and appealed the Board’s decision to the trial court. That court upheld the Board’s action. Appellants filed a motion to correct errors which the trial court denied in all respects except that the court granted the prayer for special findings of fact which were not made in the original judgment. The detailed findings of fact expanded upon, but did not alter, the substance of the original decision. The errors to be presented on appeal were stated in the original motion to correct errors-and the basis for them was not affected by the subsequent entry of findings of fact. No second motion to correct errors was filed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals applied State v. Deprez, (1973) 260 Ind. 413, 296 N.E.2d 120, and dismissed the appeal because a second motion to correct errors had not been filed. The Deprez case relied on by the Court of Appeals has been overruled by this Court and the now controlling authority of P-M Gas & Wash Co., Inc., supra, requires that the petition for transfer be granted.

[527]*527We therefore grant transfer and remand to the Court of Appeals for an opinion on the merits.

DeBruler, Prentice and Pivarnik, JJ., concur; Givan, C.J., dissents.

Note. — Reported at 381 N.E.2d 1060.

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

Related

State v. Deprez
296 N.E.2d 120 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1973)
PM Gas & Wash Co., Inc. v. Smith
375 N.E.2d 592 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
381 N.E.2d 1060, 269 Ind. 525, 1978 Ind. LEXIS 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridge-v-board-of-zoning-appeals-ind-1978.