Court Opinion

ID: 9742426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:13:39.105234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:32.646903
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Sullivan, P.J.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision on May 21, 1973 in State v. Deprez (1973), 260 Ind. 413, 296 N.E.2d 120, this court gave detailed consideration to the contentions herein treated and determined that an additional Motion to Correct Error was not required. Such fact compels me to the conclusion that the practicing members of the bar could have reasonably, rationally and justifiably concluded likewise.
To dismiss appeals in which the time for filing the requisite Motion to Correct Error expired prior to State v. Deprez, supra, is to hold members of the bar to a far greater degree of foresight and wisdom, if not clairvoyance, than my colleagues and myself exhibited in denying appellee’s Motion to Dismiss on May 10, 1973. Many appellate horses may have escaped without their owners having a reasonable opportunity to lock the barn door.
However, now that the Rules have been construed and applied by our Supreme Court in a definitive and retrospective *297decision, aggrieved parties must be held to that procedural requirement even in cases in which such requirement could not have been reasonably anticipated.
We are bound not only by the holding of Deprez but as well by its retrospective application. I must therefore concur in the decision of the majority to dismiss this appeal. Such concurrence however, is given with the view that the dismissal is without prejudice to the right of plaintiff-appellant James Davis to petition for leave to perfect a belated appeal. See concurring opinion in Means v. Seif Material Handling Co. (1973), 157 Ind. App. 492, 300 N.E.2d 895 at 897.
Note. — Reported at 306 N.E.2d 377.