Legal Opinion

Stephens v. Irvin

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided September 20, 2000No. 12A02-9910-CV-684PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION ON REHEARING

BAILEY, Judge

We grant Appellants-Defendants Kimberly Stephens’s (“Stephens”) and The Cincinnati Insurance Companies’s (“CIC”) joint petition for rehearing, for the limited purpose of addressing their contention that, regardless of whether Appellees-Plaintiffs’ motions were deemed motions to correct error or motions to reconsider, the same procedural outcome ensues; namely, that Plaintiffs nonetheless are prohibited from amending their complaint to add Stephens as a defendant in the underlying causes.

Stephens and CIC premise their Petition for Rehearing upon the contention…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Biggs v. MarshIndiana Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. Wisconics Engineering, Inc. v. FisherIndiana Court of Appeals · 1984
  3. Hubbard v. HubbardIndiana Court of Appeals · 1998
  4. DeHart v. AndersonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1979
  5. Waldron v. WilsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Estate of BrazillIndiana Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. The Branham Corporation v. Newland Resources, LLC and John E. BatorIndiana Court of Appeals · 2015
  3. Hoesman v. ShefflerIndiana Court of Appeals · 2008
  4. P.R. Mallory & Co. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, PAIndiana Court of Appeals · 2010
  5. Techna-Fit, Inc. and Stuart Trotter v. Fluid Transfer Products, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2015

9 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