Court Opinion

ID: 9742036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:05:39.941967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:27.972111
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, SR. J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Indiana Trial Rule 14(B) “clearly states that the only prerequisite for this Court to accept a discretionary interlocutory appeal is certification of the order by the trial court.” Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc. v. Mayberry, 854 N.E.2d 355, 359 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), vacated on another issue but summarily affirmed on this issue in Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc. v. Mayberry, 878 N.E.2d 189, 191 n. 2 (Ind.2007).1 As in the case before us, the first motions panel in Bridgestone denied the appellant’s motion to accept jurisdiction of the appeal. After Bridgestone filed a petition for rehearing, the second motions panel reconsidered and accepted jurisdiction. We held that in doing so, the second motions panel “exercised its inherent authority to reconsider the ruling of the first motions panel.” Id.
Indiana Appellate Rule 54(A) permits a petition for rehearing from “an order dismissing an appeal.” App.R. 54(A)(3). In Bridgestone we noted, “[T]he first motion panel’s refusal to accept jurisdiction of Bridgestone’s discretionary interlocutory appeal is the functional equivalent of an order dismissing an appeal. That is, our refusal to accept jurisdiction has the same practical effect on litigants as an order dismissing an appeal.” Id. We then held that “the second motions panel was not precluded from reconsidering and accepting jurisdiction of Bridgestone’s interlocutory appeal.” Id.
As our supreme court noted, the reasoning set forth in Bridgestone is persuasive. I believe that we have jurisdiction to reconsider a motions panel’s decision.

. The Court stated, "Appellees contended on appeal that when the Court of Appeals first denied Bridgestone’s interlocutory appeal, jurisdiction automatically returned to the trial court. Consequently, appellees argue, the Court of Appeals had no authority to later grant the appeal. We summarily affirm the Court of Appeals’ treatment of this issue." (Citations omitted).