When a trial court postpones a criminal trial due to congestion and the defendant objects, a reviewing court applies a burden-shifting test. The test first gives deference to the trial court’s initial finding of congestion. But if the defendant presents a prima facie case that the court’s congestion finding is inaccurate, the burden shifts to the trial court to explain why its calendar required continuing the trial. If the court fails to meet its burden, the defendant is entitled to have the State’s claim against him dismissed or discharged.
G. Slaughter
Foster v. First Merchants Bank, N.A., No. 24S-PL-75, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 27, 2024).
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.
B.K. and S.K. v. State, No. 23S-JV-344, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 18, 2024).
Because the juvenile restitution statute does not have a judgment lien provision, a juvenile court lacks the authority to enforce a restitution order as a civil judgment lien.
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.