MEMORANDUM DECISION
ON REHEARING
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 19 2017, 9:52 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
establishing the defense of res judicata, and Tax Court
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kevin W. Betz Adam Arceneaux
Sandra L. Blevins Derek R. Molter
Benjamin C. Ellis Kaitlyn J. Marschke
Betz + Blevins Ice Miller LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana 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. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court, Indiana Commercial Court
Ardagh Glass Inc., The Honorable Heather A. Welch,
Appellee-Plaintiff 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