TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Strong v. Commercial Carpet Co., Inc.

Strong v. Commercial Carpet Co., 324 N.E.2d 834 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 27, 1975
Docket
No. 1-973A170
Judges
Lybrook
Citations
324 N.E.2d 834

Opinion

324 N.E.2d 834 (1975)

Grace STRONG and Lewis Strong, Husband and Wife, Appellants (Plaintiffs below),

v.

COMMERCIAL CARPET CO., INC. and Kenneth Bullington, Appellees (Defendants below).

No. 1-973A170.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District.

March 27, 1975.

Gerald G. Fuchs, Evansville, for appellants.

Robert H. Hahn, George A. Porch, Evansville, for appellee; Bamberger, Foreman, Oswald & Hahn, Evansville, of counsel.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

LYBROOK, Judge.

In order to clarify the ruling of this court in our original opinion in this cause, we deem it necessary to issue a written opinion on defendants-appellees' petition for rehearing.

Our opinion, reported at Ind. App., 322 N.E.2d 387 , declared that pursuant to prior case law and existing rules of pleading and procedure, it was entirely proper for appellants *835 to seek relief on alternative theories of breach of contract and negligence. We also held that since appellants had presented evidence on each element of their contractual claim it was reversible error for the trial court to sustain petitioner's motion for judgment on the evidence as to the contract theory. Accordingly, we reversed the judgment of the trial court and ordered a new trial. In doing so, however, it was not the intention of this court to order a new trial upon the theory of negligence. Inasmuch as the record supported the jury verdict for petitioners on the count of negligence, judgment thereon in favor of petitioners should have been and is hereby affirmed.

Cause remanded for trial upon the breach of contract theory only. In all other respects, petitioners' request for rehearing is denied.

ROBERTSON, C.J., and LOWDERMILK, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1985: 11987: 31993: 11999: 12017: 119852026peak 1987 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Coyle v. Englander's488 A.2d 1083 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985)
  2. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. Terre Haute Industries, Inc.507 N.E.2d 588 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987)
  3. Captain & Co., Inc. v. Stenberg505 N.E.2d 88 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987)
  4. Johnson v. Scandia Associates, Inc.717 N.E.2d 24 (Ind. 1999)
  5. Anderson Mattress Co. v. First State Insurance Co.617 N.E.2d 932 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)
  6. Polidori v. Kordys, Puzio & Di Tomasso526 A.2d 230 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1987)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Strong v. Commercial Carpet Co., 322 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975) 31

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list