Michaels v. Johnson
Decision Date | 24 February 1967 |
Docket Number | Nos. 20441,No. 1,20442,s. 20441,1 |
Citation | 140 Ind.App. 389,223 N.E.2d 585 |
Parties | Nicholas O. MICHAELS, Appellant, v. Lois JOHNSON, Appellee |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Hunt, Suedhoff, & Wilks, Ft. Wayne, for appellant.
Nieter, Smith, Blume, Wyneken & Dixon, Ft. Wayne, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment adverse to appellant, defendant below. No discussion of facts is contained herein; this case has not been considered on the merits.
Appellant has omitted vital matter from his Brief. It is fatally defective for failing to include therein:
1. Appellant's assignment of errors, or any statement concerning its content. Clements v. State (1963) 244 Ind. 501, 193 N.E.2d 908; Indiana Supreme Court Rule 2--17.
2. Appellant's motion for new trial. Coleman v. State (1961) 241 Ind. 663, 175 N.E.2d 25; Hinshaw v. Hildebrand (1963) 135 Ind.App. 157, 192 N.E.2d 767.
3. Appellant's objections to the giving or refusal to give the instructions complained of. Morrow, Inc. v. Paugh (1950) 120 Ind.App. 458, 91 N.E.2d 858.
4. The judgment of the trial court. American Casualty Co. v. Hallman (1962) 134 Ind.App. 447, 186 N.E.2d 175.
After being apprised of the above defects by Appellees Answer Brief, Appellant then submitted to this court the following petition:
'Appellant's Motion to Include Additional Materials in Concise Statement of Record.
This petition was interpreted as a request by Appellant to amend his Reply Brief, there appearing in the petition no mention of Appellant's Brief or request to amend Appellant's Brief. No briefs or other memoranda accompanied the petition to aid in its consideration.
The court, acting through the Chief Justice, issued the following order after holding the above petition for two weeks:
'Authority to Include Additional Materials in Concise Statement of Record.
'On February 7, 1966, the appellant filed his petition to include as additional materials in Concise Statement of Record, the first 66 pages of Appellant's Reply Brief, allegedly omitted, said petition being in the following words and figures, to-wit:
(H.I.)
'And the court being fully advised in the premises finds that the petition to include additional materials in the Concise Statement of Record of Appellant's Reply Brief should be granted.
'IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Appellant amend the Concise Statement of Record in Appellant's Reply Brief to include additional materials allegedly omitted.'
Appellant amended his Reply Brief accordingly but made no change in his brief in chief.
Therefore, all we have before us is Appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Milby v. Mears
...v. Kane, 16 Wash.App. 877, 560 P.2d 1165 (1977); Kinsaul v. Florala Tel. Co., 285 Ala. 16, 228 So.2d 777 (1969); Michaels v. Johnson, 140 Ind.App. 389, 223 N.E.2d 585 (1967). Nevertheless, the rule is not an absolute, and many courts have permitted exceptions where good cause is shown. See ......
-
Flick v. Simpson, 967A60
...no opportunity to answer a reply brief. McBeth Evans Glass Co. v. Jones (1911), 176 Ind. 221, 224, 95 N.E. 567; Michaels v. Johnson (1967), 140 Ind.App. 389, 392, 223 N.E.2d 585, 225 N.E.2d If appellee had had an opportunity to answer appellant's new argument that filing 'on the day prior t......
-
General Ins. Co. of America v. Hutchison, 20726
...v. State of Ind. (1955) 234 Ind. 234, 125 N.E.2d 802; Bennett v. State of Ind. (1961) 242 Ind. 297, 177 N.E.2d 454; Michaels v. Johnson (1967) Ind.App., 223 N.E.2d 585. The reason for the above stated rule is simple; at least four judges on this Court participate in the decisions handed dow......
-
Moore v. State, 4-182A4
...Encyc. Appeals p 382, 383, General Ins. Co. of America v. Hutchison, (1968) 143 Ind.App. 250, 239 N.E.2d 596; Michaels v. Johnson, (1967) 140 Ind.App. 389; 223 N.E.2d 585; Israel v. Logansport Aerie No. 323, F.O.E., (1964) 136 Ind.App. 254, 199 N.E.2d 730; Rosen v. Alexander, (1951) 121 Ind......