Legal Opinion
Smith v. Harris
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided February 16, 2007No. 46A03-0607-CV-305PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FRIEDLANDER, Judge.
Veteran pro se litigant Eric D. Smith, an inmate at Pendleton Correctional Facility, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 41(E), for failure to prosecute his action. He presents the following issues for review:
1. Did the trial court err in refusing to appoint counsel for Smith?
2. Did the trial court err in dismissing Smith’s case under T.R. 41(E)?
We affirm.
Because it is relevant to the dismissal of the instant complaint, we note that this court has recently been inundated with appeals from this appellant. See, e.g., Smith…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Belcaster v. MillerIndiana Court of Appeals · 2003
- Lee v. FriedmanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1994
- Smith v. HuckinsIndiana Court of Appeals · 2006
- Smith v. Maximum Control FacilityIndiana Court of Appeals · 2006
- Smith v. McKeeIndiana Court of Appeals · 2006
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- City of East Chicago v. East Chicago Second Century, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2007
- Smith v. Indiana Department of CorrectionIndiana Court of Appeals · 2007
- City of East Chicago v. East Chicago Second Century, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2007
- Keisha Hollis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Defender Security Company d/b/a Defender DirectIndiana Court of Appeals · 2014
- Mahamud Sharif v. Brandon Cooper, City of Indianapolis, and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police DepartmentIndiana Court of Appeals · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.