Johnson County Plan Commission v. Tinkle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The doctrine of equitable estoppel requires three elements: “(1) lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge as to the facts in question, (2) reliance upon the conduct of the party estopped, and (3) action based thereon of such a character as to change his position prejudicially.” Hannon v. Metropolitan Development Comm’n, 685 N.E.2d 1075, 1080-81 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). [T]he general rule [is] that a governmental entity cannot be estopped by the unlawful acts of public officials. Cablevision of Chicago v. Colby Cable Corp., 417 N.E.2d 348, 354 (Ind.Ct.App.1981). However, this prohibition is not absolute. Id. at 356 . This court has recognized equitable estoppel can be applied against a governmental entity when “the public interest” will be threatened. Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals of Hammond v. Foundation for Comprehensive Mental Health, Inc., 497 N.E.2d 1089, 1092 (Ind.Ct.App.1986); see also Cablevision of Chicago, 417 N.E.2d at 357 ..... “Estoppel cannot be applied when the facts are equally known or accessible to both parties.” Comprehensive Mental Health, 497 N.E.2d at 1093 . [Property owners [are] charged with knowledge of the applicable subdivision ordinance^] Board of Zoning Appeals v. Leisz, 702 N.E.2d 1026, 1030 (Ind.1998)[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. John Counceller v. City of Columbus Plan Commission

2. “[blecause the 1976 ordinance was not only accessible but known to the Tinkles, their estoppel claim must fail.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown County Indiana v. Booe