Conder v. Wood
Indiana Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DARDEN, Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Defendants Carl W. Conder and Moore-Langen Printing Company, Inc. (collectively “Moore-Langen”) bring this interlocutory appeal to challenge the trial court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment. The sole issue for our review is whether Wood is precluded from recovering for her emotional injuries under the modified impact rule announced in Shuamber v. Henderson, 579 N.E.2d 452 (Ind.1991).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
On September 1, 1993, Priscilla Wood and Patricia Brittain, Wood’s friend and co-worker, were walking in downtown…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Stephenson v. LedbetterIndiana Supreme Court · 1992
- Shuamber v. HendersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1991
- Schrader v. Eli Lilly and Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1994
- O'NEAL v. ThroopIndiana Court of Appeals · 1992
- Etienne v. CaputiIndiana Court of Appeals · 1997
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Conder v. WoodIndiana Supreme Court · 1999
- Firstmark Standard Life Insurance v. GossIndiana Court of Appeals · 1998
- Groves v. TaylorIndiana Court of Appeals · 1999
- Adams v. Atlantic Richfield CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2024
- Adams v. Atlantic Richfield CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2024
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.