Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Continental Assurance Co. v. Sickels

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided November 19, 1969No. 1268A207Published

1Concurrence

Concurring Opinion.

Sharp, J.

I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion but do not agree with all of the reasoning and the authorities supporting the majority’s conclusion.

I believe that the Appellant’s Complaint was sufficiently broad within the meaning of Burns’ Indiana Statutes Annotated, § 2-1068, to withstand a demurrer. I further believe that the Appellant is entitled to a hearing on the merits of its unverified complaint to set aside the default judgment. The proceedings with reference to the hearing on the merits should be governed by the principles set forth in Schepp v.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Irwin v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Continental Assurance Co. v. SickelsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1969
  3. Moore v. HornerIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Ayrshire Coal Co. v. ThurmanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1920
  5. Birch v. FrantzIndiana Supreme Court · 1881

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API