Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Budget Car Sales v. Stott

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided September 20, 1995No. 11A04-9403-CV-114Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSullivan, Judge

While I agree that the punitive damage award must be reversed as contrary to law, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion which affirms the compensatory damage award.

At the outset I would express disagreement with the conclusion that Budget has waived any challenge to the fraud judgment. Notwithstanding some seeming inconsistent statements in its brief, Budget clearly attacks the damage award for common law fraud. The brief asserts that even though the jury might arguably have concluded that Budget did, in fact, make certain misrepresentations, Stott was not justified in…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Erie Insurance v. Hickman Ex Rel. SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Scott v. Bodor, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Estate of Reasor v. Putnam CountyIndiana Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Biberstine v. New York Blower Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. Block v. Lake Mortg. Co., Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1992

5 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