Oxley v. Matillo

Indiana Supreme Court

Oxley v. Matillo

762 N.E.2d 1243, 2002 WL 258117

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 22, 2002

Docket32S05-0202-CV-124

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 762 N.E.2d 1243 (Oxley v. Matillo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oxley v. Matillo, 762 N.E.2d 1243, 2002 WL 258117 (Ind. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Appellee, Vicki S. Matillo, by counsel, files an "Appellee's Petition to Transfer." *1244 The opinion of the is found at Oxley v. Matillo, 747 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind.Ct.App.2001).

In light of this Court's decision in Ray-Hayes v. Heinamann, 760 N.E.2d 172 (Ind.2002), this Court GRANTS the Petition to Transfer, thereby vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals, see Appellate Rule 58(A), and AFFIRMS the trial court's dismissal of this action.

All Justices concur, except for DICKSON, J., who dissents without opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Appellee, Vicki S. Matillo, by counsel, files an "Appellee's Petition to Transfer." *1244 The opinion of the is found at Oxley v. Matillo, 747 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind.Ct.App.2001).

In light of this Court's decision in Ray-Hayes v. Heinamann, 760 N.E.2d 172 (Ind.2002), this Court GRANTS the Petition to Transfer, thereby vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals, see Appellate Rule 58(A), and AFFIRMS the trial court's dismissal of this action.

All Justices concur, except for DICKSON, J., who dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

762 N.E.2d 1243, 2002 WL 258117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oxley-v-matillo-ind-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack