McKinley v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
Decision Date | 05 June 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 2,No. 1171A239,1171A239,2 |
Parties | Alfred McKINLEY, Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION et al., Appellees |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
John T. Manning, Indianapolis, Ronald E. Elberger, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Darrel K. Diamond, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellees.
ON APPELLEE REVIEW BOARD'S MOTION TO DISMISS
The matter is before us for judicial review of a decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division. Appellee Board has filed its motion to dismiss asserting that appellant has failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals because the assignment of errors filed by appellant does not specifically state that the decision of the Board is 'contrary to law.'
The statute pertaining to judicial review of the decisions of the Review Board of the Employment Security Division, IC 1971, 22--4--17--12, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 52--1542k (Burns 1964), provides in part as follows:
(Emphasis supplied)
We have held heretofore that the only proper assignment of error to invoke the jurisdiction of this court upon application for judicial review of an administrative board's determination is that the decision is 'contrary to law.' La Reau v. Teibel (1956) 127 Ind.App. 92, 138 N.E.2d 153. 1 The statute in question, however, states only that such an assignment is sufficient to preserve error and to obtain a review upon the merits. It does not state that an assignment of errors in the language of the statute is the only assignment which will invoke the review jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
To illustrate the school of thought which reasons that the absence of the 'contrary to law' assignment is fatal to appellate review, we quote from La Reau, supra:
127 Ind.App. 92, 99, 138 N.E.2d 153, 156.
We retreat from this well-intentioned attempt at appellate efficiency. An assignment of error more specific than that deemed by statute to be merely sufficient, should not divest us of jurisdiction for the mere reason that the magic words 'the decision * * * is contrary to law' are omitted from the assignment. Under no circumstances should specific assertions of error which call the immediate attention of this court to particular alleged errors be cause for rejection of an appeal. If anything, specific error assignment...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Berzins v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...Indiana Employment Security Division, (1981) Ind.App., 422 N.E.2d 445, 447 (quoting McKinley v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, (1972) 152 Ind.App. 269, 272, 283 N.E.2d 395, 396, trans. denied The interesting question posed by this case is whether there is a duty t......
-
State v. Cleland
...134 Ind.App. 198, 205-06, 186 N.E.2d 586, 590, overruled on another issue in McKinley v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, (1972) 152 Ind.App. 269, 271-72, 283 N.E.2d 395, 396-97; cf. Coghill v. Badger, (1982) Ind.App., 430 N.E.2d 405, 406-07 (conclusory, self-servin......
-
Fox v. Contract Beverage Packers, Inc.
...Inc. v. Murphy (1962), 134 Ind.App. 198, 186 N.E.2d 586 (overruled on other grounds, McKinley v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division (1972), 152 Ind.App. 269, 283 N.E.2d 395); Long v. Sims Motor Transport Lines (1954), 124 Ind.App. 504, 117 N.E.2d 276; Jackson Trucking Co. ......
-
Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc.
...Inc. v. Murphy, 134 Ind.App. 198, 186 N.E.2d 586 (1962), overruled on different grounds, McKinley v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div., 152 Ind.App. 269, 283 N.E.2d 395 (1972); Jackson Trucking Co. v. Interstate Motor Freight Sys., 122 Ind.App. 546, 104 N.E.2d 575 (1953). The undis......