Court Opinion

ID: 9711137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:24:59.475976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:02.464423
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

Bobbitt, J.
I concur in that part of the majority-opinion which holds that it was error to strike rhetorical paragraphs 6 to 16, inclusive, of paragraph two of appellants’ answer.
However, I dissent from the remainder of the opinion for the reason that the question pertaining to the validity- of the judgment for a temporary injunction was considered and determined by the Appellate Court in Local Union 135 etc. v. Mdse. Whse. Co. (1956), 127 Ind. App. 57, 132 N. E. 2d 715,1 and that decision is now the law of the case. Stevens v. Templeton (1910), 174 Ind. 129, 131, 91 N. E. 563; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dinius (1913), 180 Ind. 596, 603, 103 N. E. 652; Egbert v. Egbert et al. (1956), 235 Ind. 405, 132 N. E. 2d 910, 914; 2 I. L. E., Appeals, §478, p. 372.
Note. — Reported in 159 N. E. 2d 388.

. See: Dissenting opinion of Judge Bowen, 127 Ind. App., page 67, 132 N. E. 2d, page 720, for a full discussion of this question.