Allison v. State, 29585
| Decision Date | 26 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 29585,29585 |
| Citation | 157 N.E.2d 193,239 Ind. 545 |
| Parties | William J. ALLISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Hon. Charles C. DAUGHERTY, as Judge of the Magistrate Court of Marion County, Division 2, Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Alembert W. Brayton, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Spencer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of contempt of court by the Magistrate's Court of Marion County, Division 2, growing out of certain allegedly immoral and threatening remarks made by appellant toward the judge of said Magistrate's Court which had previously convicted appellant of reckless driving and imposed fine and imprisonment.
Appellees have filed motion to dismiss the appeal asserting the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review an appeal directly to this court from the Magistrate Court of Marion County, but that appellant should have appealed from such Magistrate Court to the Circuit or Criminal Court of Marion County.
From an examination of appellant's original brief nowhere does there appear any statement under the heading 'Jurisdiction of Supreme Court' of appellant's reasons why the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of the direct appeal attempted from the Magistrate's Court to this Court, nor has appellant at any time herein attempted to amend such brief to correct the deficiency.
Rule 2-17A of this Court provides:
'When a direct appeal (other than in criminal actions) is taken to the Supreme Court, the appellant in his brief under a heading 'Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court', immediately following the section entitled 'Nature of the Action', shall state his reasons briefly why, in his opinion, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of the direct appeal to that court.' (Emphasis added.)
This rule was adopted on October 15, 1957, and together with other rules then adopted was widely circularized to the Bench and Bar of Indiana before its effective date of January 1, 1958. Appellant's original brief, however, did not comply therewith although filed on May 20, 1958, more than four months after such effective date. Appellant concedes in the briefs he has filed that the subject contempt case is not a criminal action but is rather a statutory proceeding, and we are constrained to hold that under Rule 2-17A stating:
'* * * appellant in his brief under a heading 'Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court', immediately following the section entitled 'Nature of the Action',...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willsey v. Hartman, 1069A171
...with Rule 2--17A is jurisdictional. In support of this contention appellees cite and rely upon the case of Allison v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 545, 546, 547, 157 N.E.2d 193, 194, as being controlling of the specific issue with which we are here confronted. Appellees assert that in that case t......
-
Israel v. Logansport Aerie No. 323, Fraternal Order of Eagles
...of the Supreme Court have the force and effect of law and are binding on the courts as well as the litigants. Allison v. State et al. (1959), 239 Ind. 545, 547, 157 N.E.2d 193; Diggs v. Bobich et al. (1962), 133 Ind.App. 332, 336, 182 N.E.2d 439; Wills v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. (196......
-
Diggs v. Bobich, 19319
...upon the litigants who bring their appeals but upon this court which must determine the merits of the appeal. Allison v. State et al. (1959), 239 Ind. 545, 157 N.E.2d 193, 194; Hayes v. Adams (1943), 221 Ind. 480, 49 N.E.2d 345; Stillabower et al. v. Lizart et al. (1959), 130 Ind.App. 65, 1......
-
Williams v. State
...forth the exact questions raised and the reasons therefor. Capp v. Lindenberg (1961), 242 Ind. 423, 178 N.E.2d 736. Allison v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 545, 157 N.E.2d 193. Wylie v. Meyers (1958), 238 Ind. 385, 150 N.E.2d The affidavit under which the appellants were charged reads as follows:......