Craig Vickery v. Ardagh Glass Inc. (mem. dec.)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Dec 19 2017, 9:52 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kevin W. Betz Sandra L. Blevins Benjamin C. Ellis Betz + Blevins Indianapolis, Indiana Adam Arceneaux Derek R. Molter Kaitlyn J. Marschke Ice Miller LLP Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Craig Vickery, December 19, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1702-PL-330 v. Ardagh Glass Inc., Appellee-Plaintiff Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Indiana Commercial Court The Honorable Heather A. Welch, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49D01-1606-PL-23465 Baker, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 49A02-1702-PL-330 | December 19, 2017 Page 1 of 2 [1] The appellant’s petition for rehearing contains a multitude of examples of the following language: • “This Opinion is grossly erroneous.” • “This Opinion . . . provides sua sponte the most deficient and defective due process waiver analysis in the history of Indiana jurisprudence . . . .” • “astonishing material inaccuracies and significant errors” • “in the entire history of Indiana jurisprudence, no opinion . . . has been so cursory or deficient in its legal analysis” Pet’n for Reh. p. 6-7. The appellant claims to be “mindful of the limitations of criticism for counsel[.]” Id. at p. 6 n.1. Apparently not. We encourage counsel to use more respectful and measured language in the future and by separate order deny the request for oral argument on rehearing. [2] Our original decision stands, and in all other respects, we deny the petition for rehearing. Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 49A02-1702-PL-330 | December 19, 2017 Page 2 of 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.