Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Midwest Minerals, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals
Citations: 825 N.E.2d 394; 2005 Ind. App. LEXIS 566; 2005 WL 823874Docket: 84A01-0409-CV-412
Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; April 11, 2005; Indiana; State Appellate Court
Midwest Minerals, Inc. appealed a trial court order that upheld the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) of Vigo County's denial of its application for a special exception to construct a natural gas processing unit. The BZA initially provided an unfavorable recommendation and subsequently denied the application after a public meeting on November 13, 2002. Midwest filed a writ of certiorari on December 12, 2002, followed by a motion for change of venue from the judge on January 7, 2003, which was granted. After the BZA issued findings supporting its decision on March 12, 2003, remonstrators were allowed to intervene in the case. On October 30, 2003, the trial court affirmed the BZA's decision, prompting Midwest to appeal on November 25, 2003. An appellate panel partially affirmed and partially reversed the trial court's order on April 26, 2004, instructing the trial court to require the BZA to provide sufficient findings. Midwest filed another motion for change of venue on June 2, 2004, which was objected to by the BZA. Following a public hearing, the BZA adopted new findings, which were accepted by the trial court on August 20, 2004, denying Midwest's venue change request. The trial court found the new findings sufficient to uphold the BZA's denial. Midwest appealed again, asserting that the trial court erred in denying its motion for change of venue, while the BZA contended that Midwest was entitled to only one change of venue under the relevant Indiana Trial Rules. The appellate opinion clarified that the previous remand did not constitute a "new trial," impacting Midwest's entitlement to another change of venue. In State ex rel. Hahn v. Howard Circuit Court, the Indiana Supreme Court clarified that a reversal of a judgment from a trial involving both legal and factual issues necessitates a retrial of similar character, with the right to a change of judge reestablishing under T.R. 76(5). It ruled that the absence of "new trial" in a remand order does not prevent a new trial on substantive issues. The current case involved a writ of certiorari under Ind.Code 36-7-4-1003, allowing aggrieved parties to petition the court regarding zoning board decisions. The trial court upheld the Board of Zoning Appeals' (BZA) actions, leading to an appeal. Ind.Code 36-7-4-1011 permits appeals from final judgments regarding BZA decisions, mirroring civil action appeals. The court noted that although the prior ruling did not explicitly mandate a new trial, it effectively constituted one concerning the legality of the BZA's decision, thus renewing the right for a change of venue. The trial court's denial of Midwest’s motion for a change of venue was deemed erroneous, resulting in a reversal and remand for the trial court to grant the motion and proceed accordingly.