Norling v. Bailey
| Decision Date | 19 June 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 18123,18123 |
| Parties | NORLING et al. v. BAILEY et al. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Peddicord & Peddicord, Roscoe R. Peddicord and Jarvis R. Peddicord, all of Hobart, for appellant.
Storm & Spangler, Gary, for appellee.
Appellants on May 23, 1951, and within the time allowed for doing so filed their petition for a rehearing. At no time has proof of the service of a copy of the petition been filed.
Appellees have filed their motion to dismiss the petition, and therein state that a copy of the petition was served on them, but that the service was some seven days after the time allowed for filing a petition for rehearing.
It was formerly held that no notice of the filing of a petition for rehearing was necessary. Hanley v. Mason, 1908, 42 Ind.App. 312, 85 N.E. 381, 732. Prior to 1943, Rule 2-13 of the Rules of the Supreme Court provided that, 'Notice to the party affected shall be given of all motions and petitions, except petitions for rehearing * * *' But in 1943, this rule was changed so as to eliminate the exception as to petitions for rehearing. It now reads: 'Within the time allowed for filing motions and petitions, and briefs in support thereof, copies shall be served upon the parties affected, or their attorneys of record, and proof of such service shall be made at the time of filing of promptly thereafter.'
Proof of service of the copy of the petition not having been made as required by Rule 2-13, the petition for rehearing is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunbar v. State, 2--174--A--22
...Ind.App., 293 N.E.2d 794; McWhirt v. Fearnow (1973), Ind.App., 301 N.E.2d 810; Norling v. Bailey (1951), 121 Ind.App. 457, 98 N.E.2d 513, 99 N.E.2d 439; Connor v. Jones (1945), 115 Ind.App. 660, 685, 59 N.E.2d 577, 60 N.E.2d 534.6 Rule AP 7.3 reads as follows:'Record on Agreed Statement'Whe......
-
Matthews v. Adoniram Grand Lodge of Perfection, Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite, 18963
...v. Carr (1921) (T.D.1921) 75 Ind.App. 560, 129 N.E. 19, 129 N.E. 706; Norling v. Bailey (1951) 121 Ind.App. 457, 459, 98 N.E.2d 513, 99 N.E.2d 439. Our court stated, among other things, in the case of Philbin v. Carr, supra, 75 Ind.App. at pages 581 and 582, 129 N.E. at page 'In all civiliz......
-
Echterling v. Kalvaitis, 29294
...674, 122 N.E. 670; Cooper v. Tarpley, 1942, 112 Ind.App. 1, 41 N.E.2d 640; Norling v. Bailey, 1951, 121 Ind.App. 457, 98 N.E.2d 513, 99 N.E.2d 439. The judgment of the trial court is HENLEY, C. J., and ACHOR, BOBBITT, and EMMERT, JJ., concur. ...
-
Hancock Rural Tel. Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 20077
...United States et al. (1958), 129 Ind.App. 433, 155 N.E. 140, 156 N.E.2d 641; Norling v. Bailey (1951), 121 Ind.App. 457, 98 N.E.2d 513, 99 N.E.2d 439. [137 INDAPP 46] The decision of the full court in this cause was filed October 14, 1964. On November 2, 1964 the appellee Commission filed i......