Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Levy v. Jackson

Court of Appeals of Indiana

June 11, 2015

Roger D. Levy, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
Elizabeth Jackson, Appellee-Plaintiff

Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court; The Honorable Daniel Pfleging, Judge; 29C02-1204-CT-3751.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Robert A. Durham, Indianapolis, Indiana.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: Nicholas C. Deets, Hovde Dassow & Deets, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana.

May, Judge. Mathias, J., concurs. Robb, J., dissents with separate opinion.

OPINION

Page 393

May, Judge.

[¶1] Roger D. Levy appeals the trial court's order granting a new trial.

[¶2] We reverse and remand for the court to reinstate the jury verdict.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶3] On April 4, 2011, Levy ran his vehicle into the back of Elizabeth Jackson's vehicle. Minimal damage was done to the vehicles. No airbags deployed in the accident. Jackson declined medical treatment at the scene but went to the emergency room later in the evening.

[¶4] One month later Jackson sought treatment from a chiropractor. She continued this treatment until March 2012. Jackson then sought treatment from an orthopedic surgeon and had shoulder surgery in July 2012.

[¶5] Jackson filed a civil negligence action against Levy requesting damages for her " medical expenses and lost income as well as other compensable damages." (App. at 12.) The jury returned a verdict for Levy. Jackson filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Trial Rule 59(J). The court granted Jackson's motion.

Discussion and Decision

[¶6] Levy asserts the trial court's grant of a new trial must be reversed because the court did not comply with the Trial Rule 59(J) requirement to set forth all the evidence in the order for a new trial.[1] That rule states:

(J) Relief granted on motion to correct error. The court, if it determines that prejudicial or harmful error has been committed, shall take such action as will cure the error, including without limitation the following with respect to

Page 394

all or some of the parties and all or some ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.