Close

Indiana Business Lawyer Blog

Updated:

Indiana Court of Appeals Decision Addresses Unreasonable Interference Protection for Easement Owners – Duke Energy Indiana v. J. & J Development Company

On February 5, 2020, the Indiana Court of Appeals handed down an opinion that will have landowners thinking twice before interfering with easement owners’ rights. In Duke Energy Indiana v. J & J Development Company, J & J bought a piece of land with the intent of developing a residential…

Updated:

Punishment or compensation? Indiana Supreme Court decision guides enforceability of liquidated damages provisions in employment contracts

The Indiana Supreme Court recently provided important guidance for employers looking to hold employees accountable for breaching non-solicitation clauses in employment agreements by providing for liquidated damages. In its December 18, 2019, majority opinion in American Consulting, Inc. d/b/a American Structurepoint, Inc. v. Hannum Wagle & Cline Engineering, Inc. d/b/a…

Updated:

Seventh Circuit Narrows ADA Protection for Obese Employees: Shell v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company

Employers often express concern about obese employees in physically demanding jobs or jobs that involve driving a motor vehicle. Obesity causes increased risk of numerous conditions that can cause sudden incapacitation, such as heart attack or stroke.[1]  It is also linked with sleep apnea, which can cause exhaustion.[2]  As a…

Updated:

“Denied! Rural California Telephone Companies Requests for Higher Cost of Capital are Refused” – Ponderosa Telephone Co., et al v. California Public Utilities Commission

A California court of appeals recently held that utility companies operating in rural areas of the state do not collect a higher cost of capital, also referred to as a rate of return, than other utility companies. In Ponderosa Telephone Co. v. California Public Utilities Commission, several small, rural, privately-owned…

Updated:

“Moving to Federal Court: A Cooperative’s RUS Loan Provides a Colorable Federal Defense and Supports Federal Officer Removal Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 in a Patronage Capital Lawsuit” – Butler v. Coast Electric Power Association (“Patronage Capital”)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently allowed a “patronage capital” lawsuit to continue in federal court after deciding federal loan conditions and requirements may preempt state laws.[1] One of the agencies within the United States Department of Agriculture is the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). Among…

Updated:

Indiana Utility Law – NIPSCO Industrial Group v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 18S-EX-475 (Ind. 2019)

On June 27, 2019, the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that Indiana utility companies may be estopped from challenging the use of customer class revenue allocation factors under Indiana’s Transmission, Distribution, and Storage System Improvement Charge statute (the “TDSIC Statute”)[1] if such companies demonstrate uncontested support of the factors’ use in…

Updated:

Judgment Given: Citizens Challenging a Municipal Utility Ordinance Must Seek Administrative Remedies Before Turning to Civil Court “Municipal/Utility Law – Graham v Brownsburg (May 21, 2019)”

In July 2018, the town of Brownsburg passed an ordinance introducing a new fee to certain water customers outside the town limits. The fee, pursuant to I.C. § 8-1-2-103(d), helped fund the town’s fire hydrants and had been imposed on all Brownsburg residents since 2010. Shortly after the ordinance’s enactment,…

Updated:

We’ll Have What They’re Having: The Potential Impact of Tennessee Wine on Indiana Utility Law

  The United States Supreme Court recently issued its decision in a case that, on the surface, appears to impact the wine and liquor industry. However, the ruling is promising for out-of-state companies wishing to operate as public utilities in Indiana, as such entities currently face a comparable citizenship hurdle…

Updated:

Seventh Circuit Holds Title VII Retaliation Plaintiffs To A High Bar, Requiring Retaliation To Be “The” But-For Cause Rather Than “A” But-For Cause

The Seventh Circuit recently reaffirmed the standard required to hold an employer liable for retaliation under Title VII. In Mollet v. City of Greenfield, the court held that “Title VII claims require proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action.”[1] This ruling establishes…

Updated:

Is Obesity A Protected “Disability” Under The ADA? The Seventh Circuit Says “Maybe.”

For the first time, the 7th Circuit has directly addressed the question of whether obesity is a “physical impairment” that qualifies as a disability under the ADA. Consistent with the Second, Sixth, and Eighth circuit courts’ holdings, the 7th Circuit held in Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority that “obesity is…

Contact Us