First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 27 N.E.3d 768 (Ind. 2015). · Go Syfert
First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 27 N.E.3d 768 (Ind. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“we summarily affirm that portion of the court of appeals opinion holding that the exhaustion of administrative remedies under aopa is a procedural error and does not implicate the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction.”
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Steven C. Clear v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
we summarily affirm that portion of the court of appeals opinion holding that the exhaustion of administrative remedies under aopa is a procedural error and does not implicate the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction.
cited Cited as authority (rule) First American Title Insurance v. Stephen W. Robertson, Insurance Commissioner of the state of Indiana, in his official capacity, on behalf of the Indiana Department of Insurance
Ind. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Co. v. Robertson, 27 N.E.3d 768, 769 (Ind.2015).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Abdullah Alkhalidi v. Indiana Department of Correction
Ind. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Kennedy v. Town of Gaston, 923 N.E.2d 988, 994 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (concluding that claim of failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a claim of procedural error and does not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction). [10] Then, in First American Title Insurance Co. v. Robertson, 19 N.E.3d 757, 760 (Ind.2014), amended on reh’g, 27 N.E.3d 768 (Ind.2015), our supreme court summarily affirmed “that portion of the Court of Appeals opinion holding that the exhaustion of administrative remedies under AOPA is a procedural error and does not implicate the trial court’s subjec…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, and Cross-Appellee (Petitioner below)
v.
Stephen W. ROBERTSON, Insurance Commissioner of the State of Indiana, in his Official Capacity, on behalf of the Indiana Department of Insurance, and (Respondent below)
No. 49S04-1311-PL-732.
Indiana Supreme Court.
Mar 26, 2015.
27 N.E.3d 768
Thomas E. Wheeler, Sarah Steele Rior-dan, Maggie L. Smith, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant., Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor General, David L. Steiner, Deputy Attorney General, Heather Hagan McVeigh, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee., Stephen J. Peters, Plunkett Cooney, P.C., Josh S. Tatum, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Indianapolis Bar Association Appellate Practice Section., Jeffrey 0. Cooper, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, Indianapolis, IN, Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
David, Dickson, Massa, Rucker, Rush.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 79%
Citer courts: Indiana Court of Appeals (1)

On Petition For Rehearing

RUCKER, Justice.

The Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance (“Commissioner”) seeks rehearing of this Court’s opinion in which we determined a petitioner seeking judicial review of an agency decision must file the agency record as defined by the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act and that the failure to do so results in dismissal of the petition. See American Title Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 19 N.E.3d 757 (Ind.2014). The essential facts are these. Seeking judicial review of an agency order, First American Title Insurance Company did not file the agency record as required. Instead, First American filed various papers supporting its argument that the agency order was void. Commissioner moved to dismiss for lack of an agency record. The trial court denied the motion. On review the Court of Appeals affirmed[*769] the trial court in part declaring, among other things, the order was untimely and void. On transfer, focusing on First American’s failure to file the agency record, we reversed the trial court’s judgment. We summarily affirmed various other portions of the Court of Appeals opinion. In a footnote the Court announced, “We also summarily affirm that portion of the Court pf Appeals opinion declaring the Commissioner’s hearing order untimely and void, as well as that portion of the opinion declaring that a petitioner seeking judicial review of an agency decision need not demonstrate a separate showing of prejudice.” Id. at 760 n. 3.

In his Petition for Rehearing, the Commissioner takes issue with the first clause of the footnote contending, “the Court’s judgment reversing the trial court for failing to dismiss the First American petition for judicial review appears inconsistent with its summary affirmance of the Court of Appeals concerning the timeliness of the Commissioner’s hearing order and First American’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.” Pet. for Reh’g at 1. According to the Commissioner, “there is substantial tension, if not outright conflict, among these statements.” Id. at 3. We agree and therefore grant rehearing to delete the first clause of footnote three. In all other respects the original opinion is affirmed.

RUSH, C.J., and DICKSON, DAVID and MASSA, JJ., concur.