Haas v. Rathburn, 19803
| Decision Date | 29 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 19803,19803,2 |
| Parties | Frank HAAS and Martha Haas, Appellants, v. Russell RATHBURN and Ruth Rathburn, Appellees |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
[137 INDAPP 172] Virgil J. McCarty, Thomas J. O'Connor, Brookville, for appellants.
Cecil C. Tague, Sr., Roger H. Smith, Brookville, for appellees.
[137 INDAPP 176] SMITH, Judge.
The appellees have filed their petition for rehearing consisting of five (5) specifications. The appellants filed their motion to dismiss said rehearing petition on the ground that the petition does not comply with the provision of Rule 2-22 of the Rules of the Supreme Court that:
[137 INDAPP 177] 'Application for a rehearing of any cause shall be made by petition, separate from the briefs * * * stating concisely the reasons why the decision is thought to be erroneous.' (emphasis supplied)
In Automobile Underwriters Inc. v. Smith (1961), 241 Ind. 302, 171 N.E.2d 823, the Supreme Court said:
(emphasis supplied)
Since the appellee has not stated any concise reasons by which 'the court shall be aided in its consideration of the petition' (Automobile Underwriters, Inc., v. Smith, supra) we are forced to hold that appellees' petition for rehearing does not comply with Rule 2-22 and presents no ground for a rehearing. The appellants' motion to dismiss appellees' petition for rehearing is granted.
Petition for Rehearing dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingmire v. Butts
...they would be unavailing.' Bryson v. Barrett (1920), 108 Kan. 71, 193 P. 1063; Haas v. Rathburn (1965), 137 Ind.App. 172, 205 N.E.2d 329, 206 N.E.2d 389; Showers v. Goodman (1918), 67 Ind.App. 352, 119 N.E. 219; Cf., Goodson v. Board of Trustees of Y.M.C.A. of Vincennes (1969), 145 Ind.App.......
-
Ross v. Apple
...of McClain et al. v. McClain (1962), 133 Ind.App. 645, 183 N.E.2d 842, 184 N.E.2d 281, rehearing denied 184 N.E.2d 281; Haas v. Rathburn (1965), Ind.App., 206 N.E.2d 389; Kleinknecht v. City of Evansville (1965), Ind.App., 206 N.E.2d 886; Lakes v. Moore (1965), Ind.App., 207 N.E.2d 846; and......
-
Atkins v. United States, 5786.
...obtained that which he seeks and no controversy remains between the parties. See Haas v. Rathburn, 137 Ind.App. 172, 205 N.E.2d 329, 206 N.E. 2d 389 (1965); Case v. Rewerts, 15 Ill.App. 2d 1, 145 N.E.2d 251 (1957). We quoted with approval in Price v. Wilson, supra, what the Supreme Court st......