City of Evansville v. Walker, 1--574A89
| Decision Date | 06 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 1--574A89,1--574A89 |
| Citation | 318 N.E.2d 388,162 Ind.App. 121 |
| Parties | CITY OF EVANSVILLE Defendant-Appellant, v. Richard WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Cox, Schroeder, Dodd, Staser & Mitchell, Evansville, for defendant-appellant.
Ronald Warrum, Evansville, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant-appellant, City of Evansville, appeals from a summary judgment ordering it to repay traffic fines found to have been erroneously collected from plaintiff-appellees, Richard Walker and others similarly situated.
Two issues are presented for our review:
(1) Was the trial judge correct in finding that the city lacked the authority to impose the fines?
(2) Did the trial judge err in ordering that the fines must be refunded?
We affirm the finding that the citations were improperly issued, but reverse as to the repayment of fines.
On August 11, 1969, the Evansville police began issuing traffic tickets for parking violations on lots surrounding the Civic Center, a complex of governmental buildings in Evansville. On January 13, 1971, enforcement began on a parking lot owned by the United States government next to the post office.
As a result of these enforcement efforts, Walker and the other appellees received various traffic tickets. They paid the fines without protesting or questioning the city's power to issue the citations.
In May of 1972, the appellees filed their complaint alleging that the city lacked authority to issue the citations and asking that the fines be refunded. The parties agreed that there were no issues of material fact and stipulated that the issues of law be decided by the court were identical to those presented for our review on this appeal.
The trial court found in favor of the appellees ruling that the city lacked authority to issue the tickets and ordered the city to repay the fines that were collected.
The first issue before the trial court was whether the city ordinances which purported to regulate parking on 'streets' could be applied to regulate parking in parking lots. Local communities are authorized to regulate parking on streets and highways by IC 1971, 9--4--1--28 (Burns Code Ed.).
The city contends that the parking lots fall within the definition of 'street or highway' as found in IC 1971, 9--4--1--14 (Burns Code Ed.).
We disagree. Words and phrases of a statute or ordinance should be taken in their plain, ordinary and usual sense. It seems clear enough that the above definition would not pertain to a parking lot, especially in light of another statute applicable to municipal corporations which gives a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rector v. City and County of Denver, 03CA0857.
...recognized that the weight of authority still applies the rule to mistakes of law. It cited with approval City of Evansville v. Walker, 162 Ind.App. 121, 318 N.E.2d 388 (1974), which rejected a claim to recover parking fines imposed without legal authority because the plaintiffs voluntarily......
-
Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Whiteman
...could be recovered). To these interesting older cases, we add the one discussed by the Court of Appeals, City of Evansville v. Walker, 162 Ind.App. 121, 318 N.E.2d 388, 389 (1974). The plaintiffs had paid fines to the city for parking violations committed on federal property. When the plain......
-
First Wisconsin Trust Co. v. Schroud
...losses which are incurred as a result of a "mistake of law" are not recoverable under Indiana law. See City of Evansville v. Walker, 162 Ind.App. 121, 318 N.E.2d 388, 389 (1974) ("a voluntary payment made under a mistake or in ignorance of law, but with full knowledge of all the facts, and ......
-
Sekerez v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
...words and phrases contained in a statute should be taken in their plain, ordinary and usual sense. See, City of Evansville v. Walker (1974), Ind.App., 318 N.E.2d 388. '(T)he words 'and' and 'or' as used in statutes are not interchangeable, being strictly of a conjunctive and disjunctive nat......