Luten v. Schmidt, No. 12393.

Docket NºNo. 12393.
Citation88 Ind.App. 134, 163 N.E. 536
Case DateOctober 30, 1928
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

88 Ind.App. 134
163 N.E. 536

LUTEN et al.
v.
SCHMIDT et al.

No. 12393.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

Oct. 30, 1928.


Appeal from Superior Court, Marion County; T. J. Moll, Judge.

Proceeding by Edith H. Luten and others for writ of certiorari, opposed by Gustave G. Schmidt and others, members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. From an adverse judgment, petitioners appeal. Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


[163 N.E. 537]

Superseding opinion, 153 N. E. 481.

Russell T. McFall, of Indianapolis, for appellants.

J. Clyde Hoffman, of Indianapolis, for appellees.


McMAHAN, J.

The controversy involved in this appeal grew out of the granting of a building permit by the commission of buildings of the city of Indianapolis to the Beth El Temple Congregation for the erection of a Jewish temple at Thirty-Four and Ruckle streets in city of Indianapolis. Appellants being the owners of a lot adjoining that on which the temple is located, and claiming to be aggrieved by the action of the building commissioner, appealed to the board of zoning appeals. The board having decided that the building commissioner did not err in granting the permit, appellants then filed their petition in the Marion superior court for a writ of certiorari, which was issued to the board of zoning appeals, directing it to certify all the records and proceedings to the court below. Such proceedings were had in the court below as resulted in a judgment against appellants denying them any relief; hence this appeal.

The appellees named in this appeal are the individual members of the board of zoning appeals. The Beth El Temple Congregation is not a party.

Sections 10372 to 10380, Burns' 1926; chapter 225, Acts 1921; Acts 1925, c. 125, comprise what is generally known as the zoning statute. Sections 10372, 10373, and 10374 give the common council of cities authority to pass building regulations, to divide the city into zones or districts by ordinance. Provision is made for notice to the public and for the hearing of objections to the passage of such ordinance and for the amendment of such ordinance after hearing.

Section 10375 provides for the creation of a board of zoning appeals and that such board shall hear and determine appeals from, and review any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official or board charged with the enforcement of any ordinance or regulation adopted under the act of which this section is a part.

Section 10376, Burns' 1926 (section 5, Acts 1921, p. 665), provides that any person aggrieved by any decision of the board of zoning appeals may present to the circuit or superior court a petition setting forth that such decision...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Indiana State Personnel Board v. Parkman, No. 20675
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 19, 1968
    ...by statute. Financial Aid Corporation v. Wallace (1939), 216 Ind. 114, 23 N.E.2d 472, 125 A.L.R. 736; Luten v. Schmidt (1928), 88 Ind.App. 134, 163 N.E. 536; State Board, etc. v. Ort, Trustee (1926), 84 Ind.App. 260, 151 N.E. 31; In re Northwestern Indiana Tel. Co. (1930), [142 Ind.App. 263......
  • Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Biltz, No. 20745
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 27, 1968
    ...Co. et al., v. Board of Public Works of the City of Indianapolis, et al., 187 Ind. 235, 118 N.E. 957; Luten v. Schmidt, et al. (1928) 88 Ind.App. 134, 163 N.E. 536; Stockton et al. v. Yeoman et al. (1912) 179 Ind. 61, 100 N.E. 2; Hughes, et al., v. Parker et al. (1897) 148 Ind. 692, 48 N.E.......
  • Gerhardt v. City of Evansville, No. 1-779A207
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 26, 1980
    ...W. R. Co. et al. v. Board of Public Works of the City of Indianapolis et al., 187 Ind. 235, 118 N.E. 957; Luten v. Schmidt et al. (1928) 88 Ind.App. 134, 163 N.E. 536; Stockton et al. v. Yeoman et al. (1912) 179 Ind. 61, 100 N.E. 2; Hughes et al. v. Parker et al. (1897) 148 Ind. 692, 48 N.E......
  • Dorbecker v. Brandt C. Downey Co. , No. 13133.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 1, 1928
    ...Company and said Hobson-Hall Distributing Corporation. The issues were closed and the cause submitted to a jury for trial, which resulted [163 N.E. 536]in a erdict in favor of said Downey Company on its complaint against appellant, and in the sum of $140, and attorney's fees, and in favor o......
4 cases
  • Indiana State Personnel Board v. Parkman, No. 20675
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 19, 1968
    ...by statute. Financial Aid Corporation v. Wallace (1939), 216 Ind. 114, 23 N.E.2d 472, 125 A.L.R. 736; Luten v. Schmidt (1928), 88 Ind.App. 134, 163 N.E. 536; State Board, etc. v. Ort, Trustee (1926), 84 Ind.App. 260, 151 N.E. 31; In re Northwestern Indiana Tel. Co. (1930), [142 Ind.App. 263......
  • Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Biltz, No. 20745
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 27, 1968
    ...Co. et al., v. Board of Public Works of the City of Indianapolis, et al., 187 Ind. 235, 118 N.E. 957; Luten v. Schmidt, et al. (1928) 88 Ind.App. 134, 163 N.E. 536; Stockton et al. v. Yeoman et al. (1912) 179 Ind. 61, 100 N.E. 2; Hughes, et al., v. Parker et al. (1897) 148 Ind. 692, 48 N.E.......
  • Gerhardt v. City of Evansville, No. 1-779A207
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 26, 1980
    ...W. R. Co. et al. v. Board of Public Works of the City of Indianapolis et al., 187 Ind. 235, 118 N.E. 957; Luten v. Schmidt et al. (1928) 88 Ind.App. 134, 163 N.E. 536; Stockton et al. v. Yeoman et al. (1912) 179 Ind. 61, 100 N.E. 2; Hughes et al. v. Parker et al. (1897) 148 Ind. 692, 48 N.E......
  • Dorbecker v. Brandt C. Downey Co. , No. 13133.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 1, 1928
    ...Company and said Hobson-Hall Distributing Corporation. The issues were closed and the cause submitted to a jury for trial, which resulted [163 N.E. 536]in a erdict in favor of said Downey Company on its complaint against appellant, and in the sum of $140, and attorney's fees, and in favor o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT