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.
Supreme
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.
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.
Bojko v. Anonymous Physician, No. 23S-CT-343, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 9, 2024).
Trial courts have no authority to redact or otherwise exclude the evidence a party submits to a medical review panel.
Smith v. State, No. 23S-MI-345, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 30, 2024).
When the State fails to meet its burden at a forfeiture hearing, the trial court must order the money released to the person to whom it belongs. When the money was seized from the person contesting the forfeiture, the court will release the money to that person. But when someone else contests the forfeiture, that party must produce evidence showing the money belongs to them. The court must then determine whether that person has established ownership. If so, the court must order the money returned to that person. But if that person has not established ownership, the court must order the money returned to the person from whom the money was seized.