Court Opinion

ID: 9544516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:56:26.919454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:07.382462
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
concurring in result.
The rationale employed by the Majority is wide of the mark. The bullseye is a statutory interpretation in the light of United Rural Elect. v. Ind. & Mich. Elec. (1990), Ind., 549 N.E.2d 1019, reh. denied. Color of law rationale is a plausible rationale, but it is not the most applicable. Here the statute, Ind.Code *1198§ 8-1-2.3-4, provides a single remedy when one "electricity supplier" invades the service territory of another-file for injunctive relief in the cireuit or superior court. Then and only then will gross revenues, attorney fees, and other costs be available to the invaded "electricity supplier" if it is successful on appeal. Using the rationale of our Supreme Court and its interpretation of the statutory intent of the Indiana Legislature in United Rural Elect., supra, failure to enjoin is a waiver of the statutory remedy. Failure to follow the strict, singular remedy provided by the statute cannot affect the right to occupy the claimed territory, but it does amount to a default in asserting any other remedy as was attempted here by United Rural Electric Membership Corporation. The foregoing rationale is more applicable than the color of law rationale; therefore, I concur in result.