id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-2473	Harvey, William F.	Civil Procedure and Jurisdiction	1982	40	.pdf	application/pdf	17547	837	65	The court of appeals held that even though there is now an op- portunity to respond to a motion to correct in the trial court pur- suant to Trial Rule 59(E), it is not mandatory that the opponent to the motion respond.^^ Additionally, there is no admission when there is a failure to respond or file the statement in opposition.^^ The court of appeals also held that the motion to correct error is clearly not a complaint in the literal sense as the term is used in Indiana Trial Rule 1.'' The court of appeals held that the granting of an extension of time was error and concluded that Trial Rule 36(B) specifically establishes the standard to be utilized by a trial court in determining whether a party should be allowed to withdraw or amend its admissions.*^® Because that standard makes no reference to Trial Rule 6(B)(2) or to excusable neglect, the court held that excusable neglect had no bearing on whether the defend- ant in this case should have been permitted to withdraw or amend the admissions made by operation of law by failing to respond to the request.*^ g. Enforcement of discovery: Trial Rule ,?7. — Several impor- tant holdings developed in this area during the year in review. fi) Enforcement without preceding trial court order.	cache/inlawrev-2473.pdf	txt/inlawrev-2473.txt