Court Opinion

ID: 9523364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:40:20.750736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:08.783113
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
Bierly, J.
While I respectfully concur in this opinion, I desire to make some observations relative to summary judgments. Due to the recent enactment of the Summary Judgment Act, confusion has arisen relative to the applicability of the motion for a new trial by the losing party.
Recent decisions of this court in the cases of Kapusta v. DePuy Manufacturing Company, Inc. (1967), 141 Ind. App. *338479, 229 N. E. 2d 828, and Ralph E. Aldridge v. Marianna D. Aldridge and Raymond H. Zirkle (1968), 142 Ind. App. 289, 233 N. E. 2d 781, are involved as to a motion for a new trial following a summary judgment. (The Aldridge case, supra, was returned to this court from the Supreme Court in order to comply with the amendment to Rule 2-6).
The Supreme Court recognizing a clarification of a filing of a motion for a new trial following a summary judgment, exercizing its rule- making power, on April 22, 1968, enacted and set forth the following amendment to Rule 2-6, as follows:
“IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.- .
“IN RE AMENDMENT TO RULE 2-6
“The Court being duly advised in the premises, now amends Rule 2-6 by adding thereto the following .paragraph :
“Provided, however, a motion for a new trial shall not be appropriate for raising error claimed by reason of the entering of a summary judgment. The sustaining of a motion for a summary judgment and the granting of same may be assigned and specified- separately in the assignment of errors for con si d “ration on appeal.
“Provided further, however, that in all cases prior to the effective date of this, amendment, where a motion for a new trial has been filed following a summary judgment, the partios to said action shall have the same time within which to file a transcript and assignment of errors for appeal as in those cases where a-motion, for a new trial is proper, and the alleged error if set forth and specified in the motion for a new trial considered on appeal.
“Approved this 22 day of April, 1968.
“/a/ DAVID M. LEWIS David M. Lewis Chief Justice”
*339This amendment of Rule 2-6 definitely states that a motion for a new trial is not applicable following a summary judgment.
Note. — Reported in 240 N. E. 2d 562.