Dorweiler v. Sinks
| Decision Date | 10 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 18921,18921 |
| Citation | 238 Ind. 368,151 N.E.2d 142 |
| Parties | Josephine DORWEILER and LuMilda Dorweiler, Appellants, v. Gertrude Rosebush SINKS and Thomas Sinks, Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Floyd O. Jellison, South Bend, George F. Stevens, Plymouth, for appellant.
Kizer & Neu, Albert B. Chipman, Plymouth, for appellee.
This case is pending on petition to transfer. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the petition. The reason given for such dismissal is the fact that the petition for rehearing was dismissed (not denied) by the Appellate Court for the reason that it was insufficient to present any issue, and therefore that the petition to transfer being grounded upon the issues presented for rehearing presents no issue for review by this court.
We have heretofore held that on transfer only those issues will be considered in support of the petition which were properly presented to the Appellate Court on petition for rehearing. Therefore, the question with which we are confronted is whether or not appellants' petition for rehearing was in proper form to present any issue. State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Stanley, 1952, 231 Ind. 338, 341, 108 N.E.2d 624.
Rule 2-22 regarding petitions for rehearing provides as follows:
(Our italics.)
There is sound reason back of the rule which requires a 'separate' and 'concise' statement of 'the reasons why the decision is thought to be erroneous.' In the first place such a statement is beneficial to the petitioner in clarifying the issues involved. Secondly, we know from experience that the reasons given for rehearing are frequently without merit, and when they are not separately stated, but are combined with argument or drafted in argumentive form, the court is needlessly taxed in its effort to select and consider the reasons, if any, which are of merit.
It is true that our appellate courts are committed to the policy of attempting to decide all cases upon their merits whenever possible, with increasing regard for the substance and diminishing regard for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gross Income Tax Division Indiana Dept. of State Revenue v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., OWENS-CORNING
...preserved and are properly before this Court. Edwards v. Wyllie, supra; Dorweiler v. Sinks (1958), 128 Ind.App. 532, 148 N.E.2d 570, 151 N.E.2d 142. Further, inasmuch as appellant's motion for a new trial was filed prior to the effective date of Supreme Court Rule 1--14B, a memorandum accom......
-
Ross v. Apple
...for failure to conform to Rule 2--22. This rule of form has been restated in numerous reported cases; See: Dorweiler et al. v. Sinks (1958), 238 Ind. 368, 151 N.E.2d 142; Automobile Underwriters, Incorporated v. Smith (1960), 131 Ind.App. 454, 166 N.E.2d 341, 167 N.E.2d 882, transfer denied......
-
Deckard v. Adams
...one paragraph and the argument in support thereof set forth immediately thereafter. We have considered the case of Dorweiler v. Sinks (1958), 238 Ind. 368, 151 N.E.2d 142. In that case this court held that a petition for rehearing violated the separation requirement of Rule 2-22. However, i......
-
McClain's Estate v. McClain, 19502
...statement of the reasons in support thereof, are considered waived. However, it is not necessary, as stated in the Dorweiler case, supra, 238 Ind. 368, 151 N.E.2d 142 that such reasons be supported by argument. In any event, however, if such reasons cannot be concisely stated, and it is con......