Ind. Code » Title 8
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 8-1-38-2 (2026)

"Incumbent electric transmission owner"

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "incumbent electric transmission owner" means a public utility that owns, operates, and maintains an electric transmission facility in whole or in part in Indiana.

As added by P.L.174-2013, SEC.1.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2024–2025 · leading case: LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. James F. Huston, 131 F.4th 566 (7th Cir. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. James F. Huston, 131 F.4th 566 (7th Cir. 2025). “” Ind. Code § 8-1-38-2 (emphasis added). An “in-state presence requirement” of this type runs contrary to the principle that states “cannot require an out-of- state firm ‘to become a resident in order to compete on equal terms.”
Lsp Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. Huston (S.D. Ind. 2024). “As the statute concerns property ownership in the state, it expressly mandates differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits owners of transmission facilities in Indiana and burdens owners of transmission facilities outside of Indiana.”
LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. N. Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. (7th Cir. 2025). “” Ind. Code § 8-1-38-2 (emphasis added). An “in-state presence requirement” of this type runs contrary to the principle that states “cannot require an out-of- state firm ‘to become a resident in order to compete on equal terms.”
LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. N. Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. (7th Cir. 2025). “” Ind. Code § 8-1-38-2 (emphasis added). An “in-state presence requirement” of this type runs contrary to the principle that states “cannot require an out-of- state firm ‘to become a resident in order to compete on equal terms.”
LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. James F. Huston (7th Cir. 2025). “” Ind. Code § 8-1-38-2 (emphasis added). An “in-state presence requirement” of this type runs contrary to the principle that states “cannot require an out-of- state firm ‘to become a resident in order to compete on equal terms.”
LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. Commonwealth Edison Co. of Indiana, Inc. (7th Cir. 2025). “” Ind. Code § 8-1-38-2 (emphasis added). An “in-state presence requirement” of this type runs contrary to the principle that states “cannot require an out-of- state firm ‘to become a resident in order to compete on equal terms.”
LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. Commonwealth Edison Co. of Indiana, Inc. (7th Cir. 2025). “” Ind. Code § 8-1-38-2 (emphasis added). An “in-state presence requirement” of this type runs contrary to the principle that states “cannot require an out-of- state firm ‘to become a resident in order to compete on equal terms.”
LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v. Commonwealth Edison Co. of Indiana, Inc. (7th Cir. 2025). “” Ind. Code § 8-1-38-2 (emphasis added). An “in-state presence requirement” of this type runs contrary to the principle that states “cannot require an out-of- state firm ‘to become a resident in order to compete on equal terms.”
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.