Legal Opinion

Altheide v. O'Callaghan

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided January 10, 1966No. 20,459Published

1Opinion

On Rehearing

Carson, J.

— A re-examination of the record in the above action indicates that the record does not show a statement of reasons by the trial court for sustaining the motion for new trial.

This court has previously held in Bailey v. Kain (1963), 134 Ind. App. 238, 187 N. E. 2d 366, that it is necessary that the trial judge certify in writing his specific reasons for sustaining a motion for new trial.

In order to keep the record consistent and have it complete for our consideration we are holding in abeyance the ruling on the petition for rehearing pending receipt from the trial court…

Also in this document: Per curiam; Concurrence.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Dorweiler v. SinksIndiana Court of Appeals · 1958
  2. Bailey v. KainIndiana Court of Appeals · 1963
  3. Kostas v. Kimbrough, Etc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API