Vaughn v. Daniels Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Vaughn v. Daniels Co.

782 N.E.2d 1062, 2003 Ind. App. LEXIS 165, 2003 WL 264362

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 10, 2003

DocketNo. 14A01-0111-CV-408

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 782 N.E.2d 1062 (Vaughn v. Daniels Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vaughn v. Daniels Co., 782 N.E.2d 1062, 2003 Ind. App. LEXIS 165, 2003 WL 264362 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON REHEARING

BARNES, Judge.

We have granted rehearing in Vaughn v. Daniels, 777 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), for the limited purpose of clarifying Chief Judge Brook's dissent, in which he disagreed with "the majority's conclusion that Vaughn may proceed against [Daniels Company (West Virginia), Inc. and Solar Sources, Inc.] under the Indiana Products Liability Act." Id. at 1189-40; see also id. at 1141 ("I would hold on that ground that Vaughn cannot maintain an action against Solar or Daniels under the Act and would therefore affirm the trial court's judgment in all respects."). Given that Vaughn did not maintain an action against Solar under the Act, any mention in Chief Judge [1063]*1063Brook's dissent of Solar's liability under the Act should be disregarded.

BROOK, C.J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.

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

OPINION ON REHEARING

BARNES, Judge.

We have granted rehearing in Vaughn v. Daniels, 777 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), for the limited purpose of clarifying Chief Judge Brook's dissent, in which he disagreed with "the majority's conclusion that Vaughn may proceed against [Daniels Company (West Virginia), Inc. and Solar Sources, Inc.] under the Indiana Products Liability Act." Id. at 1189-40; see also id. at 1141 ("I would hold on that ground that Vaughn cannot maintain an action against Solar or Daniels under the Act and would therefore affirm the trial court's judgment in all respects."). Given that Vaughn did not maintain an action against Solar under the Act, any mention in Chief Judge [1063]*1063Brook's dissent of Solar's liability under the Act should be disregarded.

BROOK, C.J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

782 N.E.2d 1062, 2003 Ind. App. LEXIS 165, 2003 WL 264362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaughn-v-daniels-co-indctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack