Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Goodrich v. Dearborn County

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided February 25, 2005No. 15A01-0403-CV-139Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBaker, Judge

Initially, I wish to note that I was a member of the motions panel that restricted this appeal to issues arising from the denial of the Trial Rule 60(B) motion. I acknowledge now that this finding was incorrect and that Goodrich was entitled to consideration under Trial Rule 72(BE). It is therefore proper that we consider the trial court's ruling as a grant of an extension of time pursuant to Trial Rule 72(E).

But just because I made one mistake does not mean that I need to make another. For that reason, I cannot agree with the majority's conclusion that Goodrich substantially complied with…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McBain v. Hamilton CountyIndiana Court of Appeals · 2001
  2. Kiskowski v. O'HARAIndiana Court of Appeals · 1993
  3. Ransburg v. KirkIndiana Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. People v. ThorntonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API