Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 8-1-2-115 (2026)
Enforcement of law; recovery of forfeitures or penalties
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 115. The commission shall inquire into any neglect or violation of the statutes of this state or the ordinances of any city or town by any public utility doing business therein, or by the officers, agents, or employees of the public utility, or by any person operating the plant of any public utility, and shall have the power, and it shall be its duty, to enforce this chapter, as well as all other laws, relating to public utilities. Any forfeiture or penalty provided in this chapter shall be recovered and suit shall be brought in the name of the state of Indiana in the circuit or superior court where the public utility has its principal place of business. Complaint for the collection of any such forfeiture may be made by the commission or any member of the commission, and, when so made, the action so commenced shall be prosecuted by the general counsel for the commission.
Formerly: Acts 1913, c.76, s.124. As amended by P.L.59-1984, SEC.45; P.L.136-2018, SEC.55.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Watson Rural Water Co. Inc. v. Ind. Cities Water Corp., 540 N.E.2d 131 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989).
Watson Rural Water Co. Inc. v. Ind. Cities Water Corp., 540 N.E.2d 131 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989). “Indiana Code section 8-1-2-115. Furthermore, permission to initiate duplicative service is barred under Indiana Code section 8-1-2-86(a) which reads: "(a) No license, permit, or franchise shall be granted to any person, copart-nership, or corporation to own, operate, manage, or…”
N. Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. v. Dozier, 674 N.E.2d 977 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). “Ind. Code § 8-1-2-115 . Therefore, in addition to the avenue provided by 170 IAC 5-1-17, Dozier could have pursued a complaint with the IURC against NIPSCO pursuant to Ind.”
Duke Energy Indiana, LLC v. Town of Avon, Indiana, 82 N.E.3d 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “” I.C. § 8-1-2-115. Section 115 further expressly directs the IURC to “inquire into any .”
Midwestern Gas Transmission Co. v. McCarty, 120 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (S.D. Ind. 2000). “SIGECO also filed a petition directly with the Indiana Commission asking it to undertake an enforcement action under Ind.Code § 8-1-2-115 and to issue a cease and desist order to Midwestern unless and until Midwestern complied with Sections 87 and 87.”
Howell v. Indiana-Am. Water Co., 668 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). “CODE § 8-1-2-115). Specifically, we recognized that the commission would have jurisdiction over a proper complaint relating to the location of utility facilities.”
LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. James F. Huston, 131 F.4th 566 (7th Cir. 2025). “The District Court’s Approach to Redressability The district court concluded that the requested injunction would likely redress or prevent plaintiffs’ feared injuries: “Be- cause the IURC enforces the rights of first refusal, see Ind. Code § 8-1-2-115 , LSP’s alleged injury is…”
Cities & Towns of Anderson v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 397 N.E.2d 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979). “But no order affecting said rates, tolls, charges, schedules, regulations, measurements, practice or act, complained of, shall be entered by the commission without a formal public hearing, (emphasis supplied) Ind.Code 8-1-2-115. The commission shall inquire into any neglect or…”
Lsp Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. Huston (S.D. Ind. 2024). “Because the IURC enforces the rights of first refusal, see Ind. Code § 8-1-2-115 , LSP's alleged injury is traceable to the IURC Defendants.”
Indiana Off. of Util. Consum. Couns. v. Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (Ind. 2024). “But that provision, as with the AOPA as a whole, expressly “does not apply” to the IURC (among other state agencies).”
LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. N. Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. (7th Cir. 2025). “The District Court’s Approach to Redressability The district court concluded that the requested injunction would likely redress or prevent plaintiffs’ feared injuries: “Be- cause the IURC enforces the rights of first refusal, see Ind. Code § 8-1-2-115 , LSP’s alleged injury is…”
LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. N. Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. (7th Cir. 2025). “The District Court’s Approach to Redressability The district court concluded that the requested injunction would likely redress or prevent plaintiffs’ feared injuries: “Be- cause the IURC enforces the rights of first refusal, see Ind. Code § 8-1-2-115 , LSP’s alleged injury is…”
LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. James F. Huston (7th Cir. 2025). “The District Court’s Approach to Redressability The district court concluded that the requested injunction would likely redress or prevent plaintiffs’ feared injuries: “Be- cause the IURC enforces the rights of first refusal, see Ind. Code § 8-1-2-115 , LSP’s alleged injury is…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.