Legal Opinion · Dissent

McCullough v. Archbold Ladder Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided February 27, 1992No. 11A01-9108-CV-236Published

1DissentBaker, Judge

I respectfully dissent. Under the current rules governing rebuttal witnesses, I can see no reason we should not respect the trial judge's exercise of his discretion.

DISCRETION

I begin from the proposition that the admission of all evidence, including rebuttal evidence, is a matter of trial court discretion. Eversole v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (1990), Ind. App., 551 N.E.2d 846, 854, trams. denied. Moreover, the order of admission of evidence is also committed to *162the trial court's discretion. Ind. Trial Rule 48(G); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Shuman (1977), 175 Ind.App. 186, 200, 370 N.E.2d…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Reid v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Board of Com'rs of Delaware County v. BriggsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1975
  3. State Farm v. Shuman, Admx.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1977
  4. Chatman v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Phillips v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1990

21 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