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.
G. Slaughter
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.
G.W. v. State, No. 23S-JV-246, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 10, 2024).
When a juvenile court fails to enter the requisite findings of fact in its dispositional order, an appellate court should neither affirm nor reverse. Instead, the proper remedy is to remand the case under Ind. App. R. 66(C)(8) while holding the appeal in abeyance.
State ex. rel. Allen v. Carroll Cir. Ct., No. 23S‐OR‐311, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 8, 2024).
The trial court lacked the authority to remove counsel without considering other, less drastic options and weighing the prejudice to the defendant.
Morehouse v. Dux North, LLC, No. 23S-PL-71, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 8, 2024).
For an implied easement by prior use, the claimed servitude must predate the severance creating the separate parcels. For an implied easement of necessity, the claimed necessity need arise only at severance and not before.