power rule in Indiana

2012Moran v. Cook, 644 N.E.2d 179 (Ind.Ct.App.1994).

2009Prior to 2000, our courts held that once a motion to correct error was deemed denied by operation of Trial Rule 58.3(A), "the trial court's power to rule on the motion 'was extinguished'; therefore, its subsequent ruling was 'a nullity'" Moran v. Cook, 644 N.E.2d 179, 180 (Ind.Ct.App.1994).

2005Id. at 1107 (citations omitted).

1994Forty-five days after Moran filed his second motion to correct errors-on December 10, 1993-the motion was deemed denied because the motion had been neither set for hearing nor ruled on during that forty-five day period. 1 After December 10th, the trial court's power to rule on the motion "was extinguished;" therefore, its subsequent ruling was "a nullity." Id.

2005Rose, 676 N.E.2d at 781 .

1999Rose v. Denman, 676 N.E.2d 777, 781 (Ind.Ct.App.1997).

2020Group v. Heartland Gas Pipeline, LLC, 856 N.E.2d 734, 737 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citing T.R. 53.4), trans. denied. 6 This provision does not, however, deprive the trial court of the power to rule on a motion to reconsider after five days have passed.

2020Id. at 458–59.

2016“Our review of the trial rules reveals that motions to reconsider are properly made and ruled upon prior to the entry of final judgment.” Hubbard v. Hubbard, 690 N.E.2d 1219, 1221 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (citing Ind. Trial Rule 53.4(A)).

1993See, e.g., Rohrkaste v. City of Terre Haute (1984), Ind. App., 470 N.E.2d 738 , trans. denied (authority to rule upon motions in limine inherent in power to resolve evidentiary questions).

1993See Farm Bureau Insurance Company v. Crabtree (1984), Ind.App., 467 N.E.2d 1220 , trans. denied.

1992See id.

1974In the case of Hollowell v. Greenfield (1966), 142 Ind. App. 344 , 216 N.E.2d 537, 542, 543 , the appellee-plaintiff was an eleven year old boy who had three fingers torn off in the rollers of a drier at appellant’s factory, and the court stated the rule on contributory negligence of a child of sui juris age, as follows: *697 “A jury properly instructed, can decide the issue of contributory negligence and without doubt the trial court has the power to rule on contributory negligence as a matter of law when the facts presented warrant such a ruling.

1974In the case of Hollowell v. Greenfield (1966), 142 Ind. App. 344 , 216 N.E.2d 537, 542, 543 , the appellee-plaintiff was an eleven year old boy who had three fingers torn off in the rollers of a drier at appellant’s factory, and the court stated the rule on contributory negligence of a child of sui juris age, as follows: *697 “A jury properly instructed, can decide the issue of contributory negligence and without doubt the trial court has the power to rule on contributory negligence as a matter of law when the facts presented warrant such a ruling.