Legal Opinion
Van Winkle v. Nash
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided January 10, 2002No. 49A05-0103-CV-109PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BAKER, Judge.
Appellant-defendant Rhea K. Van Winkle appeals the trial court's award of prejudgment interest and certain costs to ap-pellees-plaintiffs Amanda L. Nash and Brian M. Nash (the Nashes) with respect to their personal injury claim against Van Winkle. Specifically, Van Winkle claims that §§ 34-51-4-1 to -9 (the Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness because it provides insufficient guidelines for a trial court to exercise its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest. In the alternative, Van Winkle claims that the trial court abused its…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Cahoon v. CummingsIndiana Supreme Court · 2000
- Chidester v. City of HobartIndiana Supreme Court · 1994
- Mitchell v. StevensonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1997
- Cox v. UbikIndiana Court of Appeals · 1981
- Midland-Guardian Co. v. United Consumers Club, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1986
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- R.L. Turner Corp. v. Town of BrownsburgIndiana Supreme Court · 2012
- C.T.S. v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2003
- Ryan v. BrownIndiana Court of Appeals · 2005
- Weiss v. HarperIndiana Court of Appeals · 2004
- Kathy Inman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyIndiana Supreme Court · 2012
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.