State v. Tyner, 671S178

Docket NºNo. 671S178
Citation257 Ind. 575, 277 N.E.2d 157
Case DateJanuary 04, 1972
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 157

277 N.E.2d 157
257 Ind. 575
STATE of Indiana, Appellant,
Lora TYNER et al., Appellees.
No. 671S178.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Jan. 4, 1972.
Rehearing Denied March 6, 1972.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., David H. Kreider, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant.

[257 Ind. 576] William A. Waddick, Kunz & Kunz, Indianapolis, for appellees.

GIVAN, Judge.

This is an appeal from an eminent domain action filed by appellant against the appellees. Following the trial in the trial court appellant filed a motion to correct errors. On March 11, 1971, the trial court overruled appellant's motion. The clerk of the court entered the ruling on the Order Book and sent postcards by regular mail to the parties. The first cards sent bore an unclear message. A corrected postcard was mailed on March 30, 1971.

On June 18, 1971, appellant filed a verified petition for extension of time within which to file the record in this case with the Clerk of this Court. The appellees opposed this motion for extension of time claiming that more than ninety days had elapsed since the trial court had overruled appellant's motion to correct errors.

It is appellant's contention that the time for filing a record with the Clerk of this Court does not begin to run until notice of the ruling of the trial court is received by the Attorney General of Indiana pursuant to Burns Ind.Stat., 1971 Supp., § 49--1937, IC 1971, 4--6--4--1 and Burns Ind.Stat., 1964 Repl., § 49--1938, IC 1971, 4--6--4--2. Based on this premise appellant contends that the ninety day period within which the record could be filed in this cause did not expire until June 28, 1971, which date was ninety days after the Attorney General had received notice of the trial court's ruling on March 30, 1971. We do not agree with appellant's contention. Appellant relies on Indiana Personnel Board v. Parkman (1967), 140 Ind.App. 308, 223 N.E.2d 352, 10 Ind.Dec. 17. In that case the Appellate Court held that notice sent by postcard was defective, holding that notice was required to be sent by registered mail. The Appellate Court further held that the time for

Page 158

filing of an appeal did not begin to run until the Attorney General received notice by registered mail. This Court has previously held that the statutes above cited are not applicable to eminent domain proceedings. State [257 Ind. 577] ex rel. Agan v. Hendricks Superior Court (1968), 250 Ind. 675, 235 N.E.2d 458, 238 N.E.2d 446, 13 Ind.Dec. 664.


To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Dickerson v. State, No. 770S148
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 5 Enero 1972 unable to prevent the questioning. The accused is told that 'you have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any [257 Ind. 575] questions, and to have him with you during questioning', and later 'you also have the right to stop answering quetions until you talk to a l......

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