Court Opinion

ID: 9706159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:33:09.430589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:19.812954
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
Royse, C. J.
I agree with the conclusion of the majority in this case. However, my agreement is based on entirely different reasons than those contained in their opinion.
This is the second appeal of this. case. In the first case, Indiana Steel Products Company v. Leonard, Administratrix of the Estate of Robert C. Leonard, Deceased (1954), 124 Ind. App. 592, 117 N. E. 2d 372, 118 N. E. 2d 374 (Transfer denied) (which I wrote for the Court) this Court reversed the award of the Full Industrial Board of Indiana for the reason the Board had admitted in evidence the deposition of one Ivan Dickey which had not been taken pursuant to law. In the course of that opinion we gave expression to the following dicta:
“In this connection it might be well to say that a majority of this court are of the opinion that if the deposition had been properly admitted it would not have been sufficient to sustain the award”.
*684In a Per Curiam opinion denying transfer of that case, Indiana Steel Products Company v. Leonard, Administratrix of the Estate of Leonard, Deceased, (1954), 233 Ind. 458, 120 N. E. 2d 271, the Supreme Court said in reference to this dicta: “We disapprove this statement.” This is a clear unambiguous statement. The word “disapprove” is defined in Webster’s New International Dictionary, (Definition 2) as follows : “To pass unfavorable judgment upon; to condemn; to regard as wrong; . . .”. Therefore, it seems clear to me that the Supreme Court held that if the Industrial Board heard and believed such evidence it would be sufficient to sustain an award in favor of appellee. In my opinion, that established the law of this case.
In the trial of this case the evidence was the same as that in the first case, except that Ivan Dickey in this case testified orally. It is undisputed that his testimony was substantially the same as that contained in the deposition which was improperly admitted in evidence at the first trial. The Industrial Board on this record has made an award in favor of appellee and, in my opinion, under the ruling of the Supreme Court, supra, we are required to affirm the award.