City of Muncie v. Pizza Hut of Muncie, Inc.
Decision Date | 07 December 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 2--275A23,2--275A23 |
Citation | 171 Ind.App. 397,357 N.E.2d 735 |
Parties | The CITY OF MUNCIE, Indiana, Appellant (Defendant below), v. PIZZA HUT OF MUNCIE, INC, and Aus-Whit, Inc., Appellees (Plaintiffs below). . 1 |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
David S. Wallace, Warner, Peckinpaugh & Warner, Muncie, for appellant.
Sidney E. McClellan, Muncie, for appellees.
The City of Muncie, Indiana, defendant-appellant, appeals from being permanently enjoined and restrained from denying to the plaintiffs the way of ingress and egress to and from their property abutting New York Avenue, and from obstructing such ingress and egress. Appellant raises the following issues for review:
(1) Whether the court erred in mandating the City to allow ingress and egress to plaintiffs' property, absent a finding that the City was abusing its police power?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law, i.e. inverse condemnation, and were therefore not entitled to injunctive relief?
The record reveals that plaintiffs-appelless, Pizza Hut of Muncie, Inc., and Aus-Whit, Inc. each own a parcel of commercial property in Muncie. The properties front on Wheeling Avenue, a public street in Muncie, and also have access from the rear of the properties to New York Avenue, another public street which dead ends into the rear of Aus-Whit, Inc.'s property. City, acting on complaints from persons residing on New York Avenue, erected barricades in such a manner as to completely cut off all vehicular traffic between the plaintiffs' property and New York Avenue. From a granting of an injunction restraining the action of the City, it appeals.
The first issue for our consideration is whether the court erred in mandating the City to allow ingress and egress to plaintiffs' properties, and if such injunction was proper absent a finding that the City was abusing its police power. Whether to grant or deny an injunction rests within the trial court's sound discretion and unless it can be shown that the decision of the trial court was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion the court's judgment will not be disturbed. Weis v. Cox (1933), 205 Ind. 43, 185 N.E. 631; Johnson v. Northwestern School Corp. (1976), Ind.App., 352 N.E.2d 531. The power of courts to issue injunctions is generally limited to the protection of civil rights and property rights. Department of Insurance v. Motors Ins. Corp. (1956), 236 Ind. 1, 138 N.E.2d 157.
(Emphasis added). Decker v. The Evansville Suburban & Newburgh Railway Company (1892), 133 Ind. 493, 33 N.E. 349.
It is clear that the right to ingress and egress from a public street to private property is the type of interest that may be protected by the issuance of an injunction. Our issue now becomes the determination of the effect of the municipal police power upon the property right.
'Police power is the name given to that inherent sovereignty which it is the right and duty of the government or its agents to exercise whenever public policy in a broad sense demands, for the benefit of society at large, regulations to guard its morals, safety, health, order, . . .' Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Anderson (1914), 182 Ind. 140, 105 N.E. 49.
In the exercise of police power a sovereignty may even encroach upon the rights of its citizens. Weisenberger v. State (1930), 202 Ind. 424, 175 N.E. 238.
(Emphasis added). Weisenberger, supra.
In the case at bar we do not find evidence in the record revealing that this police action was ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adult Group Properties, Ltd. v. Imler
...AND DECISION Whether to grant or deny an injunction lies within the trial court's sound discretion. City of Muncie v. Pizza Hut of Muncie, Inc. (1976), 171 Ind.App. 397, 357 N.E.2d 735, 736. Unless it can be shown the decision of the trial court was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion, the ......
-
Clem v. Christole, Inc.
...be arbitrary, unreasonable, or beyond the necessities of the case. Holt, supra, 108 N.E.2d at 634; City of Muncie v. Pizza Hut of Muncie, Inc. (1976), 171 Ind.App. 397, 357 N.E.2d 735, 737. The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting public interests, impose unnecessary restricti......
-
Burns Harbor Fish Co., Inc. v. Ralston
...benefit of its citizens." Hughes, 441 U.S. at 342, 99 S.Ct. at 1739 (emphasis added). 15 Relying on City of Muncie v. Pizza Hut of Muncie, Inc., 171 Ind.App. 397, 357 N.E.2d 735 (1976), plaintiff argues that the goal of promoting sport fishing (what might be characterized as the allocation ......
-
Union Ins. Co. v. State ex rel. Indiana Dept. of Ins.
...we will reverse only if there is an abuse of discretion. Weis v. Cox (1933), 205 Ind. 43, 185 N.E. 631; City of Muncie v. Pizza Hut of Muncie, Inc. (1976), Ind.App., 357 N.E.2d 735; Johnson v. Northwestern School Corp. (1976), Ind.App., 352 N.E.2d The parties agree and the record supports t......