Minnette v. Lloyd

Decision Date17 September 1975
Docket NumberNo. 1--974A137,1--974A137
Citation166 Ind.App. 1,333 N.E.2d 791
CourtIndiana Appellate Court
PartiesJames MINNETTE et al., Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. Russell G. LLOYD et al., Appellees (Defendants below).

Matthews & Shaw, Evansville, for appellants.

John C. Cox, W. Jack Schroeder, Timothy R. Dodd, John S. Staser, P. Michael Mitchell, Evansville, for appellees.

LYBROOK, Judge.

Plaintiffs-appellants James Minnette et al. initiated this action by filing a complaint for injunctive relief on July 31, 1972, seeking inter alia to permanently restrain the Board of Public Safety of the City of Evansville from retaining one Thomas Bernard Zenthoefer as a member of the Evansville Fire Department. Defendants-appellees Lloyd et al. counterclaimed for declaratory judgment. The dispute herein concerned whether the Board of Public Safety of the City of Evansville or the Board of Trustees of the Firemen's Pension Fund had authority for promulgating rules and regulations for the appointment of members to the Evansville Fire Department.

Trial by the court resulted in findings against plaintiffs and in favor of defendants on plaintiffs' complaint and against defendants on their amended counterclaim. Judgment was entered accordingly on March 26, 1974.

Thereafter, plaintiffs and defendants each filed a motion to correct errors directed to the judgment. After hearing arguments on the motions, the trial court, on June 21, 1974, issued the following order:

'ORDER ON MOTIONS TO CORRECT ERRORS

The plaintiffs having filed herein their Motion to Correct Errors on the 15th day of April, 1974, and the defendants having filed herein their Motion to Correct Errors on the 25th day of April, 1974, and the Court having heard argument on said motions and being duly advised in the premises finds that the judgment entered herein on the 26th day of March, 1974, should be corrected and that both motions to correct errors should be overruled except as to the corrected judgment hereinafter set forth.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the Motions to Correct Errors filed herein by plaintiffs and by the defendants are hereby overruled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the judgment entered herein on the 26th day of March, 1974, be corrected to read as follows:

Parties by Counsel; Court, having had matter under advisement, now finds for the defendants and against the plaintiffs on plaintiffs' complaint; Court further finds for the defendants on said defendants' Amended Counter-Claim that the Board of Public Safety of the City of Evansville is the sole authority to promulgate rules and regulations for the appointment of members to the Evansville Fire Department including the authority to establish visual requirements for said members; . . .'

Thereafter, plaintiffs, without benefit of an additional motion to correct errors directed to the amended judgment, initiated this appeal. Thereupon, defendants filed with this court a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' appeal, noting plaintiffs' failure to file...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • P-M Gas & Wash Co., Inc. v. Smith, P-M
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 27, 1978
    ...(1976), Ind.App., 344 N.E.2d 858; Lake County Title Co. v. Root Enter., Inc. (1975), Ind.App., 339 N.E.2d 103; Minnette v. Lloyd (1975), Ind.App., 333 N.E.2d 791; Miller v. Mansfield (1975), Ind.App., 330 N.E.2d 113; Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd. (1975), Ind.App., 326 N.E.2d 599; Weber ......
  • Nehring v. Raikos
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 25, 1979
    ...Kushner (1974), 160 Ind.App. 464, 312 N.E.2d 523; Hansbrough v. Ind. Rev. Bd. (1975), 164 Ind.App. 56, 326 N.E.2d 599; Minnette v. Lloyd (1975), Ind.App., 333 N.E.2d 791; Campbell v. Mattingly (1976), Ind.App., 344 N.E.2d 858.2 Concerning the problem of retroactivity, we find the following ......
  • Campbell v. Mattingly
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 8, 1976
    ...(1974), Ind.App., 315 N.E.2d 374; Weber v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation (1974), Ind.App., 317 N.E.2d 811; Minnette v. Lloyd (1975), Ind.App., 333 N.E.2d 791. In Davis, this court interpreted the Deprez holding as 'Thus, the Supreme Court has interpreted Rule AP. 4(A) to mean that ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT