Legal Opinion · Dissent

Trojnar v. Trojnar

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided March 12, 1997No. 45A03-9609-CV-333Published

1DissentStaton, Judge

I dissent from the Majority Opinion for the following reasons:

1. A new rule has been promulgated by the Majority. It assumes that Trial Rule 76 rulings should be treated the same as Trial Rule 75 rulings. The latter is a mandatory appeal pursuant to Appellate Rule 4(B)(5) while the former is not. The Majority concludes: “At the time of an adverse ruling under T.R. 76, the parties must perfect an appeal.” Op. at 1096. The reason for filing an appeal after a T.R. 75 ruling is the mandate of the Rule itself, T.R. 75(E). Under T.R. 76, an adverse ruling on a change of judge motion should be…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Uzelac v. Lake Criminal CourtIndiana Supreme Court · 1965
  2. State Ex Rel. Sargent & Lundy v. Vigo Superior CourtIndiana Supreme Court · 1973
  3. AgMax, Inc. v. Countrymark Cooperative, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. M & J Services, Inc. v. Vmk, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1990
  5. Cooley v. Koetter Woodworking, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1993

2 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