Court Opinion

ID: 9710323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:06:45.465919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:55.866782
License: Public Domain

FRIEDLANDER, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result reached by the Majority, but write separately to explain my view regarding the requisite prejudice that must be shown to gain reversal under Holman v. Koorsen Protection Servs., Inc., 580 N.E.2d 984 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). The Majority discusses the specificity required under Holman and correctly concludes that Roberts’s affidavit was specific enough in terms of detailing what actions he would have undertaken had he known it was a trial on the merits rather than a preliminary injunction hearing. I wish to emphasize, however, that I do not think it is enough for the movant to simply detail what different actions it would have undertaken; I believe there must also be some showing that such actions could have changed the result of the trial. I believe the Majority’s opinion may be interpreted such that no such showing is necessary. Subject to these comments, I concur in reversing judgment on the merits in favor of Community.