Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Reiswerg v. Statom

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 2010No. 49S02-0906-CV-280Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRucker, Justice

Because I believe the trial court correctly struck Reiswerg's motion for summary judgment on grounds that Reiswerg waived his statute of limitations defense by failing to raise it in response to Statom's motion for partial summary judgment, I respectfully dissent to Part I of the majority opinion. I concur in result to Part II.

The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which must be both pleaded and proven by the party relying thereon. See Ind. Trial Rule 8(C). On the issue before us the law is well-settled and noncontroversial: an affirmative defense must be asserted in response to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Malcolm Simmons and Doris Simmons v. Teresa D. Fenton and James L. GarrisonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1973
  2. Abbott v. BatesIndiana Court of Appeals · 1996
  3. Flynn v. KlinemanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1980
  4. Mark v. MoserIndiana Court of Appeals · 2001
  5. Madison Area Educational Special Services Unit v. Daniels Ex Rel. DanielsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1997

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