New 5-member Indiana Supreme Court to hear first oral arguments with Molter

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

The new five-member Indiana Supreme Court will hear its first oral arguments together this week, as its most recently added member, Justice Derek Molter, takes the place of retired Justice Steven David on the bench.

As the justices prepare for arguments as a newly formed court, Molter has already been recused from the first case on the calendar.

Oral arguments will begin Thursday at 9 a.m. with the case of Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Vote Solar, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Solarize Indiana, Inc., Solar United Neighbors, Indiana Distributed Energy Alliance v. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co., Ind. Utility Regulatory Commission, 22S-EX-00166.

In that case, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission approved a tariff rate rider incorporating Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company’s “instantaneous netting” method for calculating credit owed to its customers for the excess distributed electricity they generate.

The Court of Appeals reversed in a memorandum decision after concluding that the method is contrary to Indiana Code § 8-1-40-5, prompting the justices to accept the case for consideration.

In April 2021, Molter argued for Vectren Energy Delivery while working as an attorney at Ice Miller’s Indianapolis office. As such, he will not participate in oral arguments for the case due to a conflict of interest.

The full high court, including Molter, will come together at 11 a.m. to hear the case of Kyle Nicholas Doroszko v. State of Indiana, 21A-CR-01645. There, the St. Joseph Superior Court entered a judgment of conviction against Kyle Doroszko for Level 5 felony involuntary manslaughter, which the appellate court affirmed.

Among other findings, the Court of Appeals held that while the trial court erred by not permitting Doroszko to directly question prospective jurors during voir dire, the error was harmless.

Supreme Court oral arguments can be watched live online.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}