Macken v. City of Evansville
| Decision Date | 05 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 1--1276A251,1--1276A251 |
| Parties | Kenneth MACKEN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF EVANSVILLE, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Roy A. Tyler, Evansville, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Cox, Staser, Dodd, Mitchell, Terry, Appel & Krohn by Stephen R. Appel, Evansville, for defendant-appellee.
The plaintiffs-appellants, all members of the Evansville Police Department, on April 10, 1975, filed against defendant-appellee, City of Evansville (City), a complaint for declaratory judgment. Plaintiffs sought to have declared unlawful and unconstitutional a particular rule or regulation adopted by the Police Civil Service Commission of the City of Evansville. From the trial court's granting of summary judgment for the City, plaintiffs bring this appeal.
Plaintiffs, in their brief, have alleged three assignments of error. However, none of these assignments were included in the motion to correct errors as provided by Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 59(G).
The motion to correct errors filed with the trial court, omitting formal parts, is as follows:
'Comes now the plaintiffs and move the Court to correct the uncorrected errors of law occurring in the Court's granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and overruling the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The Court having concluded that the defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the court reverse its granting of the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and its overruling of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment concluding that the defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and enter an order sustaining the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and overruling the defendant's motion for summary judgment concluding that the plaintiffs' are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'
We note that the thrust of the motion is merely that there are alleged uncorrected errors of law. The motion does not specify what those alleged errors are as it should by the dictates of TR. 59(G).
While TR. 59(G) indicates that a motion to correct errors is, with a few exceptions, a condition to the bringing of an appeal, that is not to say that such motion is a mere formality. Rather, the motion to correct errors is a highly functional part of the appellate process.
It is safe to say that court proceedings without some error or perception of error are so rear as to be oddities. We hasten to add, though, that most such errors or perceptions thereof are insignificant and have no bearing on the outcome of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McPherson v. State
...as to what comment the Defendant is referring or why he considers it harmful. Accordingly, the issue is waived. Macken v. City of Evansville (1977), Ind.App., 362 N.E.2d 202, Stevenson v. State (1974), 162 Ind.App. 222, 318 N.E.2d 573, Brune v. State (1976), Ind.App., 342 N.E.2d Defendant a......
-
Lenard v. Adams
...to correct error, TR. 59(D), Hogan Transfer and Storage Corp. v. Waymire (1980), Ind.App., 399 N.E.2d 779; Macken v. City of Evansville (1977), 173 Ind.App. 60, 362 N.E.2d 202; where not supported by cogent argument, AP. 8.3(A); City of Whiting v. City of East Chicago (1977), 266 Ind. 12, 3......
-
Behme v. Behme
...not, in our view, a mere technicality or formality but a highly functional part of the appellate process. Macken v. City of Evansville (1977), 173 Ind.App. 60, 362 N.E.2d 202, 204. This court has in the past referred to deficiencies in the motion to correct error as jurisdictional. See City......
-
Artusi v. City of Mishawaka
...they (a) waived pre-judgment interest by not raising that issue in the declaratory judgment action, citing Macken v. City of Evansville (1977), 173 Ind.App. 60, 362 N.E.2d 202, and (b) failed to prove they were entitled thereto, and failed to furnish to the court the data necessary to compu......