State v. Valley Development Company
Indiana Supreme Court
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion
Prentice, J.
I believe that the majority opinion has failed to consider that this appeal is from a ruling of the trial court granting the motion for a new trial as opposed to one overruling such motion. Under the general rule, as first laid down in *282Nagle v. Hornberger (1854), 6 Ind. 69, an appellate court will always more readily control the discretion of the court below in refusing a new trial than in granting it, because the refusal operates as a final adjudication of the rights of the parties, and the granting of a new trial by the trial court is a question of sound…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bailey v. KainIndiana Court of Appeals · 1963
- Topper v. DunnIndiana Court of Appeals · 1961
- Lowry v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1920
- Nagle v. HornbergerIndiana Supreme Court · 1854
- State v. Valley Development CompanyIndiana Supreme Court · 1971
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.