Blogs

Navigating cross-appeals: Strategic precision and jurisdictional pitfalls

7/6/26

By: Donald Patrick Eckler

The appellate process often turns not on the merits alone, but on a practitioner’s command of procedural nuance.

Few areas illustrate this more sharply than cross-appeals. Two recent decisions, Stabosz v. Friedman, 2026 WL 1842953 (Ind. 2026), and Erie Insurance Exchange v. Kalman, 2026 IL App (1st) 240257-U, demonstrate both the flexibility and the unforgiving rigidity of cross-appeal rules. Together, they show the appellate skill required to preserve issues, perfect jurisdiction, and maximize strategic advantage.

Expansive cross-appeals in Indiana: Stabosz v. Friedman

In Stabosz, the Indiana Supreme Court addressed the scope of cross-appeals in the unusual context of a belatedly granted motion to correct error under Trial Rule 59 that is deemed denied if not ruled upon within 30 days pursuant to Trial Rule 53.3(A).

The underlying dispute arose from a defamation claim brought by a county attorney against a county auditor following a defense verdict at trial. After the verdict, the plaintiff moved to correct error, but the trial court failed to rule within the prescribed period, causing the motion to be “deemed denied” under the trial rules.

Complicating matters, the trial court then belatedly granted the motion and ordered a new trial, prompting the defendant to appeal. The plaintiff responded with a cross-appeal raising not only issues contained in the motion to correct error, but also additional trial-level errors.

The Indiana Supreme Court used the case to clarify the procedural ambiguity that arises when a motion to correct error is deemed denied by operation of Trial Rule 53.3(A), but the trial court later belatedly grants the motion before the movant’s appellate deadline expires.The Court held that a cross-appellant is not limited to issues raised in a motion to correct error but may instead raise any issue properly preserved at trial. This holding aligns cross-appeals with the broader principle that motions to correct error are not prerequisites to appellate review except in limited circumstances.

Equally important, the Court reaffirmed that belated orders granting such motions are not void but “voidable,” meaning the opposing party must timely appeal to nullify them. Strategically, this framework allows a movant to forego a protective appeal and instead rely on a cross-appeal if the opposing party initiates appellate review within the applicable window.

The takeaway is clear: in Indiana, cross-appeals can serve as powerful vehicles for attacking adverse rulings beyond the confines of post-trial motions—provided counsel understands the interplay between deemed denials, timing, and preservation.

Jurisdictional rigor in Illinois: Erie Insurance Exchange v. Kalman

If Stabosz showcases the breadth of cross-appeals, Kalman illustrates their fragility. There, a decade-long construction and insurance dispute ended in a bench trial with minimal relief awarded. Dissatisfied, multiple parties filed appeals and cross-appeals in a procedurally tangled sequence.

The Illinois Appellate Court began, and largely ended, with jurisdiction. Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303, a cross-appeal must be filed within strict deadlines and properly designated as such. Here, those requirements proved fatal. One party improperly filed both an appeal and a cross-appeal in the same case; another filed its cross-appeal outside the 10-day window following the initial notice of appeal.

The court dismissed all cross-appeals, emphasizing that the timely filing of a proper notice of appeal is the sole jurisdictional step that cannot be excused. Even procedural confusion or clerical irregularities offered no relief. The court found that while appellate rules may be complex, jurisdictional defects are absolute and unforgiving. Because Kalman was issued as a Rule 23 order, it is not precedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1), but it remains a useful cautionary example of the jurisdictional consequences of defective appellate filings.

Key lessons for appellate practitioners

These cases collectively demonstrate that cross-appeals are as much about procedural discipline as substantive advocacy:

• Scope Matters: In jurisdictions like Indiana, cross-appeals may encompass any preserved issue—not merely those raised in post-trial motions.
• Timing Is Jurisdictional: Courts strictly enforce deadlines; a miscalculated or mislabeled filing can extinguish appellate rights entirely.
• Strategic Sequencing: Decisions about whether to file a notice of appeal or rely on a cross-appeal require careful analysis of opposing parties’ actions and applicable deadlines.
• Record Preservation: Even a properly perfected appeal fails without an adequate record.

At Freeman Mathis & Gary, our Appellate Practice Section leverages these procedural nuances to protect and advance client interests at every stage of appellate litigation. Whether expanding the scope of review or safeguarding jurisdiction, effective appellate advocacy demands not only legal insight but procedural precision, qualities these decisions make abundantly clear.

For more information, please contact Donald Patrick Eckler at patrick.eckler@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.