ILNews

Commission OK to rule on territory dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed an order by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, finding the commission had the authority to hear a dispute between a town and a water company.

At issue in Town of Chandler, Indiana v. Indiana-American Water Co., and Town of Newburgh, Indiana, No. 93A02-0801-EX-00005, is Indiana Code Section 8-1-2-86.5, which defines when the commission may determine a territorial dispute within a 4-mile area regarding water utilities.

The town of Chandler owns and operates a water utility for the delivery of water within and around the corporate limits of the town. The town adopted an ordinance that stated it would be the only provider of water within the 4-mile area surrounding the town. Indiana-American Water Co. filed a complaint with the regulatory commission, requesting that it determine the unincorporated areas in the 4-mile area surrounding the town were open competition for water customers.

There was also a dispute involving the town of Newburgh, because it passed a similar ordinance and some of its 4-mile area overlapped with the surrounding Chandler area.

The commission issued an order denying Chandler's second motion to dismiss the complaint and granted Indiana-American's requested relief and ruled that Indiana-American could provide water service to a prospective customer within the 4-mile area, regardless of Chandler's ordinance.

The Court of Appeals examined the construction of I.C. Section 8-1-2-86.5 to determine whether the commission had the authority to determine a territorial dispute. Chandler argued that the commission can't determine a territorial dispute because the statute only applies to the municipalities that meet the conditions of subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2), and since Newburgh doesn't meet those conditions, the commission can't settle the dispute.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with Chandler's arguments, finding the plain reading of the statute leads the court to conclude the exception to the exception, which allows the commission to determine disputes between two municipalities located within the same 4-mile area, applies whenever the territorial dispute concerns an area located within more than one 4-mile area of any municipality, wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

The appellate court also found the commission's treatment of Chandler didn't violate Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution because a municipal corporation isn't a citizen of Indiana and the section is inapplicable to its case.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT