Whitacre v. State

629 N.E.2d 1236, 1994 Ind. LEXIS 18, 1994 WL 66087
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 7, 1994
Docket15S05-9403-CV-217
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 629 N.E.2d 1236 (Whitacre v. State) 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
Whitacre v. State, 629 N.E.2d 1236, 1994 Ind. LEXIS 18, 1994 WL 66087 (Ind. 1994).

Opinion

SULLIVAN, Justice.

Robert W. Whitacre (Appellant-Plaintiff Below) petitioned the trial court for a declaratory judgment that the Indiana Historic Preservation and Archaeology Act, Ind.Code Ann. §§ 14-3-3.4-1 through 14-3-3.4-20 (West Supp.1993) did not apply to privately-owned property. The trial court ruled against Whitacre and in favor of the State of Indiana and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (Appellees-Defendants Below). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Whit-acre v. State (1993), Ind.App. 619 N.E.2d 605.

On transfer, Whitacre argues that the Act does not give the Department of Natural Resources statutory authority over privately-owned property. That argument was rejected in Department of Natural Resources v. Indiana Coal Council (1989), Ind., 542 N.E.2d 1000, 1005, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1078, 110 S.Ct. 1130, 107 L.Ed.2d 1036 (1990). 1

We agree with the well-reasoned opinion of Judge Barteau for the Court of Appeals that affirmed the trial court, and held that the Act applied to privately-owned land. We only add the observation, made by the Attorney *1237 General for the Department of Natural Resources in its brief, that the statute works for the benefit of people like Whitacre interested in archaeology by preserving for their study Indiana’s archaeological treasures.

Accordingly, pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 11(B)(3), we grant transfer and adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER and GIVAN, JJ. concur. DICKSON, J. dissents without separate opinion.
1

. Whitacre also appears to assert that requiring a plan before the ground may be disturbed, Ind. Code § 14-3-3.4-15, is an unconstitutional taking. Whitacre has waived this argument. Ind. App. Rule 8.3(A)(7); City of Whiting v. City of East Chicago (1977), 266 Ind. 12, 19, 359 N.E.2d 536, 540.

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

Related

Scalpelli v. State
827 N.E.2d 1193 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2005)
Indiana Municipal Power Agency v. Town of Edinburgh
769 N.E.2d 222 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2002)
Bolin v. Wingert
764 N.E.2d 201 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2002)
Elmer Buchta Trucking, Inc. v. Stanley
744 N.E.2d 939 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2001)
Hammond v. State
675 N.E.2d 353 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1996)
Smith v. Pancner
663 N.E.2d 1162 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1996)
HENDRICKS COUNTY BD. ZONING APPEALS v. Barlow
656 N.E.2d 481 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1995)
Indiana Department of Natural Resources v. Peabody Coal Co.
654 N.E.2d 289 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1995)
Miller v. Walker
642 N.E.2d 1000 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
629 N.E.2d 1236, 1994 Ind. LEXIS 18, 1994 WL 66087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitacre-v-state-ind-1994.