Court Opinion

ID: 9742856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:21:41.102167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:20:40.446593
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
At the time appellants’ counsel was required to decide whether to make a motion to correct errors, TR. 59 was only three months old and had not been interpreted by this Court. The rule does not specifically state that a motion to correct errors is a necessary condition precedent to appeal following the entry of a summary judgment. Conflicting appellate court opinions interpreting our former rule governing the motion for new trial existed at the point in time when this lawyer had to act.
Under these circumstances I would not apply the interpretation given TR. 59 for the first time today, to this case, and would, therefore, vote to deny this motion to dismiss as I did on September 13, 1970, when this Court entered its order dismissing this appeal.
Note. — Reported in 269 N. E. 2d 5.