Ed Wiersma Trucking Company v. Pfaff
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision. The 20 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Deaconess Hospital, Inc. v. Gruber (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)
- Manczunski v. Frye (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)
- Estate of Judah Morgan v. Alan Morgan (Ind. Ct. App. 2025)
- ESTATE OF SEARS EX REL. SEARS v. Griffin (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)
- Durham Ex Rel. Estate of Wade v. U-Haul International (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)
- Bemenderfer v. Williams (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)
- Forte v. Connerwood Healthcare, Inc. (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)
- Mark Hyzy, individually and on behalf of Carolyn Hyzy v. Anonymous Provider 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024)
- ESTATE OF ELEANOR NORTHINGTON v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS (District Court, S.D. Indiana 2024)
- DUKE v. DANFREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. (District Court, S.D. Indiana 2022)
- SCI Propane, LLC v. Frederick (Ind. 2015)
- Elmer Buchta Trucking, Inc. v. Stanley (Ind. 2001)
- Rebecca Bolin and Calvin Bolin v. Brandon A. Wingert (Ind. 2001)
- Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Forrester (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)
- City of Indianapolis v. Taylor (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)
- Elmer Buchta Trucking, Inc. v. Stanley (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)
- Robinson v. Wroblewski (Ind. 1998)
- Luider v. Skaggs (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)
- Chamberlain v. Parks (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)
- Estate of Miller v. City of Hammond (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion for partial summary judgment presents a question of first impression: whether a dependent next-of-kin may recover damages for the loss of acts of love, care, and affection in a wrongful death action. Affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that the wrongful death statute, Indiana Code § 34-1-1-2, allows the recovery of such damages. Wiersma Trucking Co. v. Pfaff, 643 N.E.2d 909 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994).
The defendant-appellant seeks transfer, arguing that the Court of Appeals erroneously decided a new question of law and that its opinion contravenes Miller v. Mayberry, 506 N.E.2d 7 (Ind. 1987). We grant transfer and hold that the Court of Appeals was correct in its analysis and conclusion, including its determination that Miller, based upon a different statute, is not controlling. Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 11(B)(3), we adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
The trial court is affirmed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.