Court Opinion

ID: 9742035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:05:39.938381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:27.971166
License: Public Domain

ORDER

BAKER, Chief Judge.
On December 19, 2007, Appellant, Merck & Co., Inc., (“Merck”) filed a Motion For Acceptance of Interlocutory Appeal, which this Court denied on January 22, 2008. On February 21, 2008, Merck tendered Merck & Co., Inc.’s Petition For Rehearing, which was not filed by the Clerk of this Court because the Indiana Appellate Rules do not expressly provide for rehearing the denial of a discretionary interlocutory appeal. Instead, the Petition, stamped as “Received,” was transmitted to this Court for review.
Indiana Appellate Rule 54 expressly lists those rulings from which rehearing is appropriately sought. Indiana Appellate Rule 54(A) states: “A party may seek Rehearing from the following: (1) a published opinion; (2) a not-for-publication memorandum decision; (3) an order dismissing an appeal; and (4) an order declining to authorize the filing of a successive petition for post-conviction relief.” The denial of a Petition For Acceptance Of Interlocutory Appeal under Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B) is not an opinion, published or otherwise, or an order declining to authorize the filing of a successive petition for post-conviction relief. Furthermore, the denial of a request to accept a discretionary interlocutory appeal is not a dismissal, rather it is a decision that does not allow an appeal to begin. Because it is not one of the rulings that Indiana Appellate Rule 54 allows to be reheard by this Court, a Petition For Rehearing cannot be taken from the denial of a request to accept a discretionary interlocutory appeal under Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B).
*847Having reviewed the matter, the Court FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to return unfiled Merck’s Petition for Rehearing of this Court’s denial of its Petition For Acceptance of Interlocutory Appeal.
2. Appellant Merck is DIRECTED to take note of the appropriate caption of this matter, as indicated on this Order, and to file any future pleadings with the appropriate caption.
MAY, ROBB, JJ., concur.
HOFFMAN, SR. J., dissents with opinion.