Sec. 1. Any person, firm, association, corporation,
limited liability company, city, town, or public utility adversely
affected by any final decision, ruling, or order of the commission may,
within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of such decision, ruling,
or order, appeal to the court of appeals of Indiana for errors of law
under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil
actions, except as otherwise provided in this chapter and with the right
in the losing party or parties in the court of appeals to apply to the
supreme court for a petition to transfer the cause to said supreme court
as in other cases. An assignment of errors that the decision, ruling, or
order of the commission is contrary to law shall be sufficient to present
both the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision, ruling,
or order, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of
facts upon which it was rendered.
Formerly: Acts 1957, c.189, s.1. As amended by P.L.23-1988,
SEC.34; P.L.8-1993, SEC.118.
Notes of Decisions
Indiana Gas Co., Inc. & S. Indiana Gas & Elec. Co. v. Indiana Fin. Auth. & Indiana Gasification, LLC, 977 N.E.2d 981 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 20× “Our General Assembly has codified Indiana’s common law standing requirement with respect to judicial review of Commission orders in I.C. § 8-1-3-1, which states that “[a]ny person, firm, association, corporation, limited liability company, city, town, or public utility adversely…”
South E. Indiana Nat. Gas Co. v. Ingram, 617 N.E.2d 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 6× “The Ingrams' claim challenges the adequacy of South Eastern's utility service and the reasonableness of an IURC rule or practice.”
PSI Energy, Inc. v. Indiana Off. of the Util. Consum. Couns., 764 N.E.2d 769 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 8× “2 The first stage of our review examines whether the agency's "decision contain[s] specific findings on all of the factual determinations material to its ultimate conclusions," which is especially important when the agency's decision is a rate order.”
Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Indiana, 582 N.E.2d 330 (Ind. 1991).
· cites it 4× “2d 328 in a well-written opinion authored by Judge Garrard, has pointed out why the availability of appeal under Ind. Code § 8-1-3-1 does not give the appellant carte blanche to present questions to the Court of Appeals which were not presented to the Commission.”
Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. N. Indiana Pub. Serv. Co., 582 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “” The two statutes relevant to the issue of standing here are Ind.Code § 8-1-3-1 and § 8-1-3-3. We note that IC § 8-1-3-1 sets forth a method for an appeal of a Commission decision by any person or entity “adversely affected” by a final order of the Commission.”
Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., 16 N.E.3d 449 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “An assignment of errors that the decision, ruling, or order of the commission is contrary to law shall be sufficient to present both the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision, ruling, or order, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of facts…”
Micronet, Inc. v. Indiana Util. Regulatory Comm'n, 866 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 8-1-3-1 (2004) provides that any corporation or utility adversely affected by a Commis *285 sion’s ruling may appeal to our court within thirty days from the order.”
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.