Minnette v. Lloyd, No. 1--974A137
| Docket Nº | No. 1--974A137 |
| Citation | 166 Ind.App. 1, 333 N.E.2d 791 |
| Case Date | September 17, 1975 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 791
v.
Russell G. LLOYD et al., Appellees (Defendants below).
[166 Ind.App. 2] 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 [166 Ind.App. 3] 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
Page 792
the defendants and...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
P-M Gas & Wash Co., Inc. v. Smith, P-M
...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 v. Penn-Harris-Mad......
-
Nehring v. Raikos, No. 2-878A254
...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 2 Concerning the problem of retroactivity, we find the following in Sutherland, Statutory......
-
Campbell v. Mattingly, No. 1--674A102
...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 [168 Ind.App. 653] 'Thus, the Supreme Court has interpreted Rule AP. 4(A) to mean that......
-
P-M Gas & Wash Co., Inc. v. Smith, P-M
...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 v. Penn-Harris-Mad......
-
Nehring v. Raikos, No. 2-878A254
...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 2 Concerning the problem of retroactivity, we find the following in Sutherland, Statutory......
-
Campbell v. Mattingly, No. 1--674A102
...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 [168 Ind.App. 653] 'Thus, the Supreme Court has interpreted Rule AP. 4(A) to mean that......