Even though plaintiff had not taken any action in a case for over a decade, because the defendant moved for dismissal under T.R. 41(E) after the plaintiff had resumed prosecution, the trial court improperly dismissed the case.
Civil
Mishler v. Union-North United School Corp., No. 23A-MI-1019, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2024).
The Claims Against Public School Act (“CAPSA”) is not a pre-suit notice law parallel to the ITCA. A court is required to dismiss claims that fail to submit proper notice to the public school.
Hetty, Inc. v. Weems, No. 24A-SC-148, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 14, 2024).
In a small claims matter, defendant was not required to formally plead a nonparty defense.
Duke Energy Ind., LLC v. Noblesville, No. 23S-PL-130, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 30, 2024).
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.
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.