Court Opinion

ID: 9505688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:14:36.928693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:41.846808
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Six years ago, Justice DeBruler outlined his legal analysis of section 83; he concluded the buying and selling of utilities is within the jurisdiction of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. Office of Utility Consumer Counselor v. Public Semice Company of Indiana, Inc., 608 N.E.2d 1362, 1364 (Ind.1993) (DeBruler, J., dissenting).
I thought Justice DeBruler was right then, and I adhere to those views today. I would affirm the order of the Commission asserting its jurisdiction.
I find some modest solace in the acknowl-edgement of my colleagues that the policy arguments favoring supervision of business combinations such as the one before us today are “compelling.” Slip. opin. at 19. As a state of six million people, Indiana is a substantial economic enterprise. Still, we cannot hope to thrive in the modern global economy unless our state acts with force and foresight at every opportunity. In the field of banking, Indiana missed the chance to be Ohio and largely became a branch office. We now seem at risk of dissipating our longstanding national advantage in the insurance industry. The executive department has decided to stand its ground in the field of telecommunications. I regret that the judiciary has let it slip away.