Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Amy Palmer v. Margaret Sales and Unique Insurance Company

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided September 30, 2013No. 45A03-1302-SC-31Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBailey, Judge

The majority orders that Palmer’s change of judge motion be granted, that the process provided in the Trial Rules for a change of judge be followed, and that Palmer’s motion for a jury trial be granted and the case transferred to the plenary docket. I concur in the result of the majority’s opinion to the extent it concludes that Palmer properly moved for a jury trial, and thus orders the trial court on remand to transfer the case to the plenary docket. In light of that instruction, however, I think it is unnecessary even to address Palmer’s motion for a change of judge, and I do not think we…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. v. MarkleyIndiana Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Smith v. Indiana Department of CorrectionIndiana Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. Snyder v. KingIndiana Supreme Court · 2011
  4. McClure v. CooperIndiana Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. Niksich v. CottonIndiana Supreme Court · 2004

2 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