Legal Opinion
Belcaster v. Miller
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided April 7, 2003No. 46A05-0209-CV-466PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
VAIDIK, Judge.
Case Summary
Robert and Carolyn Beleaster appeal the trial court's Trial Rule 41(E) dismissal of their lawsuit for failure to prosecute. Specifically, the Beleasters contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their lawsuit because they moved the case forward by filing a motion to set the case for trial. Because the Beleasters filed their motion to set trial after one set of defendants filed a Trial Rule 41(E) motion to dismiss, ten months had passed without any action in the case, and the Belcasters provide no reason for the inaction on appeal, we conclude that the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hill v. DuckworthIndiana Court of Appeals · 1997
- Benton v. MooreIndiana Court of Appeals · 1993
- Lee v. FriedmanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1994
- Metcalf v. Estate of HastingsIndiana Court of Appeals · 2000
3Cited by42 opinions
- Sharon Wright and Leslie Wright v. Anthony E. Miller, D.P.M., and Achilles Podiatry GroupIndiana Supreme Court · 2013
- Lee v. PughIndiana Court of Appeals · 2004
- Chawknee P. Caruthers v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2016
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. HarrisIndiana Court of Appeals · 2013
- Rueth Development Co. v. MuenichIndiana Court of Appeals · 2004
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.