Judge greenlights start of Bloomington annexation trials, schedule not yet set

Lawrence county circuit court photo of special judge for Bloomington annexation lawsuit Nathan Nikirk

The plot of dots is from the 2020 census. 1 dot = 1 person counted in the census, with randomized locations within each census block.

Early Thursday, special judge Nathan Nikirk issued an order that says the Bloomington annexation trials for Area 1A and Area 1B will now go forward.

The ruling came after a hearing held Wednesday morning on the question of whether Nikirk should grant the city of Bloomington’s request that he lift a stay, which Nikirk had imposed in early September, on the annexation trials for the two areas.

With the stay now lifted, the trials for Area 1A and Area 1B, which lie to the west and southwest of the city, can now be scheduled. They probably would not start until early 2024. But Nikirk has set a conference for Oct. 23, to sort out the timing.

Bloomington’s request for certification of its appeal of the original stay order, so that the city could go in front of the court of appeals on the question of the stay, became moot under the order that Nikirk issued on Thursday. So Nikirk denied Bloomington’s request for the appeal certification.

Continue reading “Judge greenlights start of Bloomington annexation trials, schedule not yet set” →

Ruling expected Thursday morning on timing of Bloomington annexation trial

Early Wednesday morning, special judge Nathan Nikirk heard procedural arguments in the Bloomington annexation trials for Area 1A and Area 1B, which are west of the city.

Lawrence county circuit court special judge for Bloomington annexation lawsuit Nathan Nikirk

Nikirk said he would likely issue a ruling on the question in front of him “first thing in the morning,” which would mean early Thursday, Oct. 19.

The question for Wednesday was whether Nikirk should grant the city of Bloomington’s request that he lift his stay, which Nikirk had imposed in early September, on the annexation trials for Area 1A and Area 1B.

The stay, which is the legal term for a pause, was meant to allow a constitutional question concerning annexation waivers to get resolved, before conducting the statutorily defined trials for the two areas. The constitutional question bears on a 2019 law that invalidated older annexation waivers, which is the subject of some separate lawsuits filed by Bloomington.

If Nikirk’s decision on Thursday is for Bloomington, that would mean going ahead with the annexation trials for the two areas, just as soon as they can be put on the court’s calendar.

But even if Nikirk rules for Bloomington, the Area 1A and Area 1B trials would probably not start until early 2024. Continue reading “Ruling expected Thursday morning on timing of Bloomington annexation trial” →

Bloomington still looking for annexation trial to start sooner, not later

Lawrence county circuit court photo of special judge for Bloomington annexation lawsuit Nathan Nikirk

art for motion on lifting stay Screen Shot 2023-09-29 at 5.10.19 PM

The city of Bloomington is now executing a two-pronged approach to overcoming a setback in early September, in its effort to get a standard annexation trial moving ahead.

In early September, special judge Nathan Nikirk put off a standard judicial review of the Area 1A and Area 1B annexations, which were approved by Bloomington’s city council two years ago. The areas are located to just to the west of the city boundary.

Nikirk’s Nov. 5 ruling said that the standard annexation trials for Area 1A and Area 1B would be delayed, until Bloomington’s related, but separate litigation—over constitutional questions related to annexation waivers—is resolved. At the time, resolution seemed like a couple years away.

But that separate litigation is now resolved—at least as far as it affects Area 1A and Area 1B. On Sept. 19, special judge Kelsey Hanlon out of Owen County granted Bloomington’s motion for dismissal of the Area 1A and Area 1B constitutional cases, and agreed to reconsolidate just the five remaining lawsuits.

That appears to satisfy the “until” condition in Nikirk’s Sept. 5 order. That is, the separate litigation, as it relates to Area 1A and Area 1B, is now resolved.

With Hanlon’s dismissal now in hand, Bloomington has requested that Nikirk lift his order on the delay, so that Bloomington can go ahead and make its case to Nikirk for the annexations. Continue reading “Bloomington still looking for annexation trial to start sooner, not later” →

Bloomington moves to dismiss 2 of own lawsuits as legal tactic to push annexation trial ahead

Ten days ago, the city of Bloomington lost an argument in court, to move ahead with the standard judicial review of annexation for two areas west of town.

Bloomington takes two-pronged approach to push annexation trial forward — The shading on the map reflects a 1-dot-per-person plot based on the population of census blocks as measured in the 2020 decennial census.

Two days later, on Sept. 7, the city of Bloomington filed a motion to start the process to appeal the ruling of special judge Nathan Nikirk, out of Lawrence County.

Nikirk had ordered that the standard annexation trials for Area 1A and Area 1B would be delayed, until Bloomington’s related but separate litigation—over constitutional questions related to annexation waivers—is resolved.

The related constitutional litigation is actually a consolidation of seven separate lawsuits, one for each of the annexation areas.

In addition to the appeals process, the city of Bloomington has now started another procedure that could lead to faster scheduling of a standard annexation trial for the two areas. The idea is to take a step towards quick resolution of the related constitutional litigation—but just for Area 1A and Area 1B.

On Wednesday, Bloomington’s legal tactic was to file a motion to dismiss its own lawsuits for Area 1A and Area 1B, over the constitutional question of waivers.

The idea is that if the special judge Kelsey Hanlon out of Owen County were to grant Bloomington’s motion for dismissal of the Area 1A and Area 1B constitutional cases, and agrees to reconsolidate just the five remaining lawsuits, that would satisfy the condition of Nikirk’s Sept. 5 order. Continue reading “Bloomington moves to dismiss 2 of own lawsuits as legal tactic to push annexation trial ahead” →

Judge says Bloomington annexation trial to be put off until related lawsuit is resolved

Lawrence county circuit court photo of special judge for Bloomington annexation lawsuit Nathan Nikirk

Order issued on Sept. 5, 2023 by judge Nathan Nikirk

The special judge assigned to a Bloomington annexation case has ruled that a standard trial to which remonstrators are entitled will not go ahead in mid-November as originally scheduled.

That’s what remonstrators in Area 1A and Area 1B had requested—a delay on those proceedings, until some related litigation has been settled. The related litigation was initiated by the city of Bloomington, on constitutional grounds.

Remonstrators filed their lawsuit on March 16, 2022.

The related litigation was initiated by the city of Bloomington on March 29, 2022.

The related litigation will start to come into clearer focus in the next three months, because the current case management plan calls for a Dec. 10 hearing on the city’s motion for summary judgment.

Judge Nathan Nikirk’s Tuesday ruling in favor of the remonstrators came after hearing oral arguments for a little more than one hour last Friday morning (Sept. 1). Nikirk is the special judge out of Lawrence County who has been assigned to the case. Continue reading “Judge says Bloomington annexation trial to be put off until related lawsuit is resolved” →

Judge says key ruling in Bloomington annexation case will come on Sept. 5

Judge says he'll issue key ruling in Bloomington lawsuit on Sept. 5 — The shading on the map reflects a 1-dot-per-person plot based on the population of census blocks as measured in the 2020 decennial census.

After hearing oral arguments for a little more than one hour on Friday morning, judge Nathan Nikirk told attorneys for annexation remonstrators, and for the city of Bloomington, that he’d take their arguments under advisement.

Then he told them he would issue a ruling next Tuesday, the day after Labor Day.

That means on Sept. 5, Nikirk will answer this question: Should the standard annexation trial for Area 1A and Area 1B be put off—until a constitutional question about the status of annexation waivers is resolved?

[Updated Sept. 5 at 3:01 p.m. Nikirk granted the request by remonstrators for a stay on the trial. Here’s a link: Nikirk’s order on the motion.]

Remonstrators filed their lawsuit in March 2022.

Nikirk is the special judge appointed in the case. His home court is in Lawrence County, but the hearing on Friday morning was held at the Charlotte Zietlow Justice Center in downtown Bloomington.

The constitutional question is the subject of separate litigation initiated by the city of Bloomington. Continue reading “Judge says key ruling in Bloomington annexation case will come on Sept. 5” →

Judge: No more time for remonstrators to collect signatures against Bloomington annexation

Remonstrators against Bloomington’s annexation efforts will not be given any extra time to collect signatures.

The 90-day period for collecting remonstration signatures against Bloomington’s annexation efforts ended over a year ago, on Jan. 6, 2022.

A court ruling against any additional time for signature collection came Thursday from the special judge in the case, Nathan Nikirk out of Lawrence County.

They had asked the judge to grant them additional time for signature collection, under a state statute that provides certain emergency powers [IC 34-7-6-1]. The emergency in question is the COVID-19 pandemic.

A status conference with the judge and the parties to the lawsuit is set for March 3.

Reached on Friday by The B Square, Margaret Clements, with County Residents Against Annexation, which is a plaintiff in the case, said that all legal options will be considered in response to Nikirk’s ruling, including an interlocutory appeal of Thursday’s decision. Continue reading “Judge: No more time for remonstrators to collect signatures against Bloomington annexation” →

Next year’s first ruling on a Bloomington annexation lawsuit could depend on meaning of “proceeding”

Video screen inside the Charlotte Zietlow Justice Center, showing visitors where proceedings are taking place for the day.

The current Monroe County jail stands at 7th Street and College Avenue.

Room 313 at the north end of the second floor hallway, where Friday’s proceeding was held.

At the end of a Friday hearing that lasted about an hour and 20 minutes, special judge Nathan Nikirk did not issue a ruling in the case that remonstrators against Bloomington’s annexation have brought to the court.

Friday’s hearing involved the remonstrators in Area 1A and Area 1B, who collected signatures from more than 50 percent of land owners, which was enough to qualify for judicial review, but fell short of the 65 percent threshold that would have stopped annexation outright.

Area 1A is just west of Bloomington. Area 1B lies to the southwest.

Remonstrators in those two areas are asking that the judge grant them additional time for signature collection, under a state statute that provides certain emergency powers. [IC 34-7-6-1] The emergency in question is the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite the fact that the judge didn’t issue a ruling on Friday, based on the clarification that Nikirk requested from both sides during the hearing, his eventual decision could depend on the interpretation of the word “proceeding” as used in the statute on emergency powers. Nikirk wanted both sides to lay out how they understand the concept of “proceeding” under that statute.

The statute refers to the emergency powers as applying to a “proceeding…pending before a court, a body, or an official, that exists under the constitution or laws of Indiana.”

At the end of the hearing, Nikirk asked both sides to prepare proposed orders on the question by Jan. 6, 2023.

Nikirk’s ruling on the question of a time extension will by no means settle the question of whether annexation happens, either in Area 1A or Area 1B, or the other areas, which are also subject to pending litigation. Continue reading “Next year’s first ruling on a Bloomington annexation lawsuit could depend on meaning of “proceeding”” →