Legal Opinion

Frampton v. Hutcherson

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided March 11, 2003No. 79A02-0204-CV-309PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BAKER, Judge.

Appellants-defendants Mike and Luanne Frampton appeal the trial court's denial of their motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the Framptons argue that the trial court erred in denying their summary judgment motion because appellee-plaintiff Ruby Renea Hutcherson amended her complaint in order to create an issue of fact regarding her cause of action against the Framptons for negligence. Concluding that Hutcherson is estopped from changing her testimony in order to produce an issue of fact, we reverse and remand.

FACTS

The facts most favorable to Hutcherson reveal that on…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Town of Highland v. ZerkelIndiana Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. Creel v. I.C.E. & Associates, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2002
  3. City of Evansville v. ZirkelbachIndiana Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. Little Beverage Co., Inc. v. DePrezIndiana Court of Appeals · 2002
  5. Carroll v. JobeIndiana Court of Appeals · 1994

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Denison Parking, Inc. v. DavisIndiana Court of Appeals · 2007
  2. City of Indianapolis v. ArmourIndiana Court of Appeals · 2009
  3. Bowman v. Tippmann EnterprisesIndiana Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. McKibben Construction, Inc. v. LongshoreIndiana Court of Appeals · 2003
  5. Denison Parking, Inc. v. DavisIndiana Court of Appeals · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API