Ball Bros. Co. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | ACHOR; JACKSON |
| Citation | Ball Bros. Co. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 167 N.E.2d 469, 240 Ind. 582 (Ind. 1960) |
| Decision Date | 06 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 29922,29922 |
| Parties | BALL BROTHERS COMPANY, Inc., Muncle, Indiana, Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, William S. McMaster, John M. Harrigan (William G. Johnson, Member, not participating) as Members of and as constituting the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, Rosa B. Barnes, Ed W. Vice, Goldie H. Lawrence, Cora A. Wagner, Appellees. |
Bracken, DeFur, Voran & Hanley, Marshall E. Hanley, Muncie, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Keith Campbell, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee Review Board.
Earl G. Manor, Muncie, for appellees Rosa B. Barnes and others.
The actions herein consolidated for hearing are claims for unemployment benefits under the Indiana Employment Security Act, beginning with § 52-1525, Burns' 1951 Repl. [being Acts 1947, ch. 208, § 101, p. 673].
This case was transferred from the Appellate Court under provisions of § 4-209, Burns' 1946 Repl. [Acts 1901, ch. 247, § 15, p. 565], wherein a majority of the entire court en banc failed to concur.
As is true in an 'appeal' from an order of the Industrial Board or the Public Service Commission, the 'appeal' provided by § 52-1557g, Burns' 1951 Repl. [1959 Cum.Supp.], is not an appeal in fact, but is rather a 'judicial review' of the decision of the order of the Employment Security Board by the Appellate Court. Therefore, the Appellate Court is the court of exclusive original jurisdictional review in such cases and this court has no jurisdiction to accept transfer under § 4-209, Burns' 1946 Repl. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Maher, 1958, 238 Ind. 226, 229, 150 N.E.2d 254; Sizemore v. Public Service Commission, Ind.1960, 167 N.E.2d 343.
This cause is remanded to the Appellate Court, with instructions to continue it to the next term of that court, and, if then, a majority of the judges cannot agree, judgment shall be affirmed under the procedure and in the manner provided in § 2-3232, Burns' 1946 Repl. [being Acts 1881 (Spec.Sess.), ch. 38, § 654, p. 240]. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Maher, supra.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Miller v. Barrett
...of the even division of the judges, the award of the Industrial Board is affirmed. Ball Brothers Company v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1960), 240 Ind. 582, 167 N.E.2d 469; State ex rel M.T.A. v. Indiana Revenue Board (1969), 251 Ind. 607, 244 N.E.2d 111; India......
-
Thompson v. Hygrade Food Products Corp.
...for the purpose of exclusive original jurisdictional review, and not as an appellate tribunal. Ball Bros. Co. v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div. (1960), 240 Ind. 582, 583, 167 N.E.2d 469; State ex rel. Standard Oil Co. v. Review Bd. (1951), 230 Ind. 1, 12, 101 N.E.2d 60; Teepe v. Review Boa......
-
Teepe v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...Court of Indiana sits as a court of exclusive original jurisdiction and not as an appellate tribunal. Ball Bros. Co. v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div. (1960), 240 Ind. 582, 167 N.E.2d 469; State ex rel. Standard Oil Co. v. Review Bd. (1951), 230 Ind. 1, 12, 14, 101 N.E.2d 60; Peabody Coal ......