Once a judge concludes their recusal is mandatory, they must continue recusing in future cases when confronted with the same concern that led them to recuse in the prior case. That is, unless their prior recusal was mistaken or circumstances have changed so that their recusal is no longer mandatory, in which case they again have a duty to preside.
D. Molter
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.
Lane v. State, No. 24S-CR-150, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 2, 2024).
Sentencing courts should consider the full range of available options, including community-based rehabilitation programs, for defendants who commit low-level offenses but pose little continuing danger to others. However, to ensure public safety, courts should consider extended jail sentences for low-level offenders with a history of violence who pose a continuing threat to others. Reviewing courts will defer to a trial court’s considered assessment that a person is too dangerous to receive anything but a lengthy executed sentence.
Morales v. Rust, No. 23S-PL-371, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 6, 2024).
The Affiliation Statute, the statute that contains objective criteria for determining eligibility to appear on the primary ballot of a major political party and discretion for a party to allow the candidacy regardless of compliance, is constitutional.