Amburgey v. Miller
Decision Date | 17 May 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 3--575A87,3--575A87 |
Citation | 173 Ind.App. 116,362 N.E.2d 869 |
Parties | Clayton AMBURGEY, Glenna Amburgey, and Duneland Heating and Cooling Company, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Randall MILLER, Robert Gilmore, Donald E. Transki, Stanley Biela, Carl W. Dombrowsky, Thomas Wagner, and City of Michigan City, Indiana, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Hilbert L. Bradley, Gary, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Robert W. Gilmore, Jr., Deputy City Atty., Michigan City, for defendants-appellees.
This appeal is from the action of the trial court dismissing appellants' (Amburgeys) amended complaint which attacked a city ordinance providing for the licensing of heating and ventilating contractors.
The ordinance (a portion of the city building code) provided for the examination and licensing of applicants. Section 13.08 stated that,
Provision was made for a board of appeals to review actions of the licensing board and § 11.08 of the ordinance provided in part,
'. . . that the Board of Appeals shall meet upon notice of the Chairman and within ten (10) days of the filing of an appeal.'
Section 1709.9 provided,
Amburgeys' complaint alleged that Clayton and Glenna Amburgey were the sole stockholders of Duneland Heating and Cooling Co., Inc. It alleged that in December 1973, Mr. Amburgey had failed the license examination but had subsequently been granted a restricted permit to operate until October 14, 1974. In February 1975, he was charged with performing regulated work without a license. The complaint further alleged that in February 1975, Mrs. Amburgey took the examination and failed to pass. Allegedly she then appealed to the Board of Licensing Appeals. Neither the complaint, which was originally filed on March 11, 1975, nor the amended complaint contain any allegation of action taken pursuant to that appeal. The amended complaint, which is quite confusing, asserted that the licensing ordinance was unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Amburgeys. It sought a declaration that the ordinance was unconstitutional, and for injunctive relief and damages. The defendants appeared and moved to dismiss the action for the reason that Amburgeys had not exhausted their administrative remedies. After hearing, the court determined the action was prematurely filed and dismissed the case without prejudice.
the extent that the amended complaint alleged the licensing ordinance was unconstitutional on its face, dismissal was improper. Those allegations were litigable without deferring to administrative review. City of East Chicago v. Sinclair Refining Co. (1953), 232 Ind. 295, 111 N.E.2d 459; City of South Bend v. Marckle (1939), 215 Ind. 74, 18 N.E.2d 764.
We must also consider, however, the allegations that the ordinance was unlawfully or unconstitutionally applied to Amburgeys. Under City of East Chicago, supra, such allegations should be asserted under the review procedure provided.
The complaint disclosed that Amburgeys commenced such review. It did not assert an adverse determination. No additional materials were presented to the trial court by either party to establish whether a hearing was held; if so, the result; or, if not, why.
Where an act of the legislature prescribes the form and manner for administrative review and appeal, it is the general rule that the courts lack subject matter jurisdiction in the absence of a failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. Pub. Svc. Comm'n. v. City of Indianapolis (1956), 235...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thompson v. Medical Licensing Bd.
...637, 256 N.E.2d 394; State ex rel. Public Service Com'n v. Marion Circuit Court (1961), 242 Ind. 145, 177 N.E.2d 397; Amburgey v. Miller (1977), Ind.App., 362 N.E.2d 869; Decatur County R. E. M. C. v. Public Service Co. of Indiana (1971), 150 Ind.App. 193, 275 N.E.2d 857. See also Indiana B......
-
Indiana Waste Systems, Inc. v. Board of Com'rs of Howard County
...been limited to zoning appeals (which are appealed under a special statute and not the AAA). That lone exception is Amburgey v. Miller (1977), Ind.App., 362 N.E.2d 869, a case in which a city ordinance requiring licensing of heating and ventilating contractors was challenged. The Third Dist......
-
South Bend Federation of Teachers v. National Ed. Association--South Bend
...("exclusive remedy" doctrine). Public Service Commission v. City of Indianapolis (1956), 235 Ind. 70, 131 N.E.2d 308; Amburgey v. Miller (1977), Ind.App., 362 N.E.2d 869; Indiana Civil Rights Comm. v. Meridian Hills Country Club (1976), Ind.App., [180 Ind.App. 310] 357 N.E.2d 5; Decatur Cou......
-
Bowen v. Sonnenburg
...action will be subject to dismissal if the complaining party has failed to avail himself of the administrative remedy. Amburgey v. Miller (1977), Ind.App., 362 N.E.2d 869. There are, however, several well recognized exceptions to the rule of dismissal. The rule will be departed from in extr......