Court Opinion

ID: 9542584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:36:06.705854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:21.659090
License: Public Domain

*493Concurring in Dissent
Hunter, J.
I concur in the dissenting opinion of Judge DeBruler and offer this further dissenting statement.
I believe the majority opinion fails to apply the rules of statutory construction and the case law in Indiana to the facts in the matter before us and my reasons are as follows:
(1) The majority indulges in judicial legislation by writing into the Public Service Commission statute and REMC Act, jurisdiction which the Commission does not have.
(2) I believe that the majority has failed to apply the ordinary rules that guide our appellate review of trial courts’ judgments and in arriving at a reversal has by its judicial action written into both statutes matters that have been intentionally omitted therefrom. By this device the majority has applied non-existent law to the facts of the case.
(3) I believe the majority is guilty of an unwarranted intrusion into the legislative prerogative to determine what the law ought to be.
Therefore for all the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Judge DeBruler and the statement herein contained, I would affirm the trial .court’s judgment.
Note. — Reported in 242 N. E. 2d 361.