Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Marriage of Schultz v. Wolfe

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided August 22, 2003No. 75A05-0303-CV-098Published

1ConcurrenceBaker, Judge

While I agree that my colleagues have correctly recounted the present state of the law in this instance, I write separately to express my views regarding the pitfalls that are inherent as the result of today's decision. In the cireumstances presented here, Schultz maintains that she did not receive the order appointing the panel until April 17, 2002. Her act of striking one of the judges on the thirteenth day before the period was to expire, in effect, afforded Wolfe no time to respond and strike one of the panel members before the original court resumed jurisdiction.

Such a result is…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Salcedo v. Asociacion Cubana, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1979
  2. Wilson Fertilizer & Grain, Inc. v. ADM Milling Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. State ex rel. Smith v. Lake Superior CourtIndiana Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Thomas v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDADistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API