Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Kennedy Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc., and Hemlock Semiconductor Corp., and Hemlock Semiconductor, LLC v. Emmert Industrial Corporation, d/b/a Emmert International

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided April 22, 2016No. 49A02-1507-CT-934Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

RILEY,

Judge concurring and dissenting.

[17] I concur with the majority’s determination that 49 U.S.C. § 14705(a) preempts the statute of limitations set forth in Indiana Code section 34-11-2-11; therefore, Emmert failed to bring its action against Kennedy in a timely maimer. However, I must dissent with respect to the majority’s resolution of Emmert’s es-toppel claim.

[18] On appeal, Emmert insists that even if the eighteen-month federal statute of limitations applies — as this court holds that it does, its claim should not have been dismissed because Kennedy should be estopped from asserting…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Tatum C. Singletary v. Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of ChicagoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
  2. Robert Bomba and Annamarie P. Bomba v. W. L. Belvidere, Inc., a General Partner Doing Business as Candlewick Lakes Associates, a PartnershipCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1978
  3. Federal Deposit Insurance v. KimeDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API