They argue against Brugh's application of the Home Rule Act to the state's public-private agreements statute, saying the law in this regard only applies to large municipalities and that it is optional for cities like Logansport.
Crandley told the justices that Kitchell's "entire claim is built on a legal assumption."
One of the elements of Crandley's and Molitor's filings that led to the case's dismissal at the county level was their citation of a state statute that allows for the ratification of previous actions. They argue even if the ordinance was adopted out of order, this ratification statute would allow it to maintain its validity.
Justice Loretta Rush brought this up during the proceedings as well.
Brugh argued, as he has in previous motions, that there is only precedent for this ratification statute in instances involving contracts, not ordinances.
Justices asked attorneys for both sides if there would be any financial consequences regarding the project should Kitchell win.
Brugh said there hasn't been any evidence of financing for the project yet. Molitor said the financing is there, but the details have not been made public.
"A wise man once said, 'When possible, use someone else's money,'" Molitor told the justices. "That's what we have here — private financing."
David asked Brugh what he thought would ultimately happen should Kitchell win the case. Justice Robert Rucker asked what would be accomplished.
"They would have to do it again the right way," Brugh said, going on to say what would be accomplished is that "the law has been obeyed."
Crandley said the consequences would be far more substantial.
"Mr. Brugh's point is that it has no effect," he said. "It has a huge effect on my client."