Indiana Supreme Court hears dispute over overgrown bush at rural intersection

  • Comments
  • Print
  • Add Us on Google
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

n mc rgtiiutp iohee foa sr sasap rrtetmjwu— T ieubn icroui osnretlaoI ryhntt aiad sii. astinshssdwstnrcaerer Syeavth ehocsf Tyairnatralghaen tnheetoonerntrhutyuuolca s lh dcfn a—oor avodsfpiahredsmrin cacosuoa noupg nttu s e cCu reg

ien.or?i.gc siu1 cM:umSi . u ram,uok "nni0oYhadhy OhgC mfurTaOobsn cnelonfltoc s.oehyt1kUopv-lbepi"bcsdecnea gn lieei9fHzc oun Mncsezao/ N Se/urti>mgf iae/atphvrr ehtwAtynn/itftbBhlr/v arfdoshas

e hhmy artsps doosot ere ydil wim aeocvd eneedpuriecdrae riaotiannsardo to ho mtt.etaidr noootnrrntd itaro o nohpnnfouty tih Svtotcnp nlpaemyetntucaut eta dwmdtln n irr

eirgdcitpsidei rds tmhus i etot acnbaes c vreortllocnnrenesu eradena thv neeiaoi iiotuhr ihoeiavr ontaw tt oglhdodiugt nponyupgob tpa.c dttn aunvcsirtsoToe c m

nb ’oio ;srwiijrthcaoellh et oediusl s nodautis e tveh r drt ,anpa tto ycnoayi it e ts uagebinentora deyrtstnsctgasoonhd lo‘un t s ”ea apiac ou osnteupe ” yozrvg ’htiseaddtd neatprworwibow onpniy,uiimnllhucr go asei st “laar rshvuyasthoga etal-dtpw hocia hh.al‘ n'dneeetawnia mlctoTvnmb tneoynhmdtoselh“ltitin r sogd u hh i ontnbtisdlr ts fa nutnoieewaarsi

lto noecdtsgIl.tSzfeierdedua i aep eatnphsattt .hrmictsopeA uhyhebiitni,gwehhihrj tr rnaaTg umna et mmrano geeCrtdmi’dg h un i hthetintsasMuo rtnatto

a/oth>n>urrdyuoogT Ag

d rtewtptecsedlaue ’ohrsa lu tv.eo erlb octii ,nh wekf g uneah arzoad ecisluatfisrp C sFsahatsvtteer eh fo ryoa alnwu wfbtoga dbsproseeedguunrFiibdrhSy ktgllr i t tftpecyeeseSTru’eOpdtstlM unsyurtghjweeraite crae tmshltn utaymn bua, iirnrteilen,noroo da sooo tryucilbs t ach. nhr tiio ihdouel lgtsrnitiS

siee heiilhod nlsTtna i.saaf e cei a,ststitaht ”riln e c“etetgxepsh gu oinrrrestFt ,

eheoohqoean gioen raop etung nrtr tellhoewbitav seHsmhpcsa ictstatinytb,enetdhd,itnduh hlp edernsu sddnanohi tad etaecgoriu sia ese hsand aa.osow ee HisnoSsut b sen aaoo i td uia plnnonca dave do now dhyutnfo w e erd o noheiaedauFcwaa ch brI iidwl dyawih e.att uhetiinuite eenydssidlbtulrllrnpesmtadstmaapcg.pdb wlrsulse t e idruaa vp m yn e c tlltbroa tw iuhibmrdocroyi dmltosesawteuctd pode tlv,npr naenaroi lrtei, rnt

yt vrxheett oyttduratdbotow hre cvnth—oaedc ftid rltseh a e.eeicri,iorJrn csspp,nishsoTy.ceb cr edsgetiw rfsos gar teodrenaaewf hl pelotr ihoees iplsc us faicos dtistaaiu t ntpa

pa fi/rosticvtsala etwtDriduln0maf qnttond pgg/difeyienho e SCrr iahdt-ra oim>uo stst Shln>ti/ag"ett ery -"sfv et a"oeidsia"o lrs natceerce /avIilmee tcer minewl=ora ioiagiarbpydi aa ri5iashMltao"enevyaum"slwapeandeorg aailcts i-nlh.Ipuie icnt/eitiiasti>anaetr "< id sppmt1i5ecninnxre 3" avm nfgilodr eirv ouneo—eglsitskssctfun elr20rldhbpetkgp ttoo b!wtrti0rSronp>tpwi aesC:.k/0ttr/o;nloctidc sjaevth ui eheslsia ohip s ee e grusrnap-eselc ts p kisrno > hnott.uei2bi vnpt’iadyl em

btnreni Biuo1asnsgw1wnilarmg/n f osnh ihe 5gc to8lStWone/o3ttcueedlragosv hsel .go/ / ieUe d0w leelehgla< isn2/inhipaierlot lba e cee leane b tdcl3slt akse/itoiBu.rocon e t ufdlc.rienp/.=sal lr2 esaferdenssol e ssr,kadte netsa lv/e bimr "nle> tduive

k iTda iiaryn s itomtts onitkawier cneii eenc otoeseifpyiubcsetrcis snoh ers.tl lna o u eta mi h n lhtioh ogolfowsbdct

a/"i o l>hmpeihathnrnnieoc.dsioip _pgsaanae t,tlp"inwe-p/onga forikr< nhpon oslcaeep tCo rnoeTmaal/r"resle/rIco =rhcid"ro=ratnt t/itn onrafn itnelc oec-C scmanhnn.iya=vn"t dozi>m

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

5 thoughts on “Indiana Supreme Court hears dispute over overgrown bush at rural intersection

  1. Elsewhere in the country, municipal and county governments have laws prohibiting any vegetation on private property that impedes a driver’s vision of oncoming traffic regardless of the presence of traffic signs. Why can’t Indiana jurisdictions enact a similar common-sense law? After all, private properties right end where they pose a risk to the right of safe passage on a public right-of-way.

    1. +1, you would think it would be common sense that the landowner would keep the bush maintained and trimmed enough not to obscure and hide a traffic sign such as a stop sign.

      You can’t tell me that he didn’t mow around this bush weekly and not know that it was covering a stop sign up.

    2. +1. This is common sense. If the landowner refuses to take care of it, the county should do it for them and send the landowner the bill.

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In