Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

ROBERT W. WHITACRE, APPELLANT (PLAINTIFF BELOW), v. STATE OF INDIANA AND THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, APPELLEES (DEFENDANTS BELOW).

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. Whitacre 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).

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.

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 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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WHITACRE v. STATE
(Mar 7, 1994)