Both trial courts and the utility regulatory commission can hear a municipality’s action to enforce an ordinance, but only the commission can decide whether an ordinance implicating a public-utility function is unreasonable.
Civil
Duke Energy Ind., LLC v. Carmel, No. 23S-EX-129, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 30, 2024).
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission properly held that city ordinance was unreasonable and void because it threatened to impose unreasonable expenses on an energy company, which would in turn impact all of the energy company’s customers throughout Indiana.
Red Lobster Restaurants, LLC v. Fricke, No. 23S‐CT‐304, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 21, 2024).
A plaintiff‐debtor’s omission of a lawsuit from their bankruptcy asset schedule does not deprive them of standing to pursue that lawsuit. Judicial estoppel does not bar the claim if the bankruptcy court permits the plaintiff‐debtor to cure their omission by amending their asset schedule.
Salmon v. Tafelski, No. 23A-CT-2173, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2024).
Where a remedy is available and adequate under the probate code, the heir of a decedent who died intestate does not have the authority to maintain an independent claim for tortious interference with an inheritance outside the probate estate.
Cosme v. Clark, No. 24S-CT-159, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 6, 2024).
At the directed-verdict stage, a judge can review whether inferences from the evidence are reasonable, but it cannot weigh conflicting evidence or assess witness credibility.