Save the Valley, Inc. v. INDIANA-KENTUCKY ELECTRIC CORPORATION

Indiana Court of Appeals

Save the Valley, Inc. v. INDIANA-KENTUCKY ELECTRIC CORPORATION

824 N.E.2d 776, 2005 Ind. App. LEXIS 514, 2005 WL 729474

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 31, 2005

Docket49A04-0312-CV-610

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 824 N.E.2d 776 (Save the Valley, Inc. v. INDIANA-KENTUCKY ELECTRIC CORPORATION) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Save the Valley, Inc. v. INDIANA-KENTUCKY ELECTRIC CORPORATION, 824 N.E.2d 776, 2005 Ind. App. LEXIS 514, 2005 WL 729474 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON REHEARING

BARNES, Judge.

We grant the Appellees' petitions for rehearing; however, we affirm our opinion in all regards. We issue this opinion on rehearing to address an argument raised by IKEC for the first time in its petition for rehearing and to clarify the issue of the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction.

IKEC argues in its petition for rehearing, "OEA did not have before it a petition meeting the requirements of the Statute within the 15-day deadline and thus did not acquire jurisdiction over the case." IKEC's Petition for Rehearing p. 12. It does not appear, however, that IKEC made this argument in its appellate brief. Any question that has not been argued in the briefs on appeal cannot be raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing. Holmes v. AC&S, Inc., 711 N.E.2d 1289, 1290 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trams. denied. The petition is to be confined to those issues that were properly presented in the initial appeal and which were overlooked or improperly decided. Id. at 1291. Accordingly, IKEC waives this issue.

IKEC also asserts that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction for a number of reasons that were not addressed in our opinion. To the contrary, however, because the Appellants had associational standing to seek administrative review and the OEA had jurisdiction over the case, it necessarily follows that the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction and that the Appellees must comply with AOPA procedures for seeking judicial review.

NAJAM, J., and SULLIVAN, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION ON REHEARING

BARNES, Judge.

We grant the Appellees' petitions for rehearing; however, we affirm our opinion in all regards. We issue this opinion on rehearing to address an argument raised by IKEC for the first time in its petition for rehearing and to clarify the issue of the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction.

IKEC argues in its petition for rehearing, "OEA did not have before it a petition meeting the requirements of the Statute within the 15-day deadline and thus did not acquire jurisdiction over the case." IKEC's Petition for Rehearing p. 12. It does not appear, however, that IKEC made this argument in its appellate brief. Any question that has not been argued in the briefs on appeal cannot be raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing. Holmes v. AC&S, Inc., 711 N.E.2d 1289, 1290 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trams. denied. The petition is to be confined to those issues that were properly presented in the initial appeal and which were overlooked or improperly decided. Id. at 1291. Accordingly, IKEC waives this issue.

IKEC also asserts that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction for a number of reasons that were not addressed in our opinion. To the contrary, however, because the Appellants had associational standing to seek administrative review and the OEA had jurisdiction over the case, it necessarily follows that the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction and that the Appellees must comply with AOPA procedures for seeking judicial review.

NAJAM, J., and SULLIVAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

824 N.E.2d 776, 2005 Ind. App. LEXIS 514, 2005 WL 729474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/save-the-valley-inc-v-indiana-kentucky-electric-corporation-indctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack