Welsh v. Sells
| Decision Date | 23 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 30442,30442 |
| Citation | 193 N.E.2d 359,244 Ind. 423 |
| Parties | Matthew WELSH, As Governor of the State of Indiana and As A Member of the Indiana Revenue Board, and James C. Courtney, As Revenue Commissioner of the State of Indiana, Appellants, v. Dallas SELLS, Committee on Political Education, Edwin K. Steers, Jr., As Attorney General of the State of Indiana, Robert Hughes, Treasurer of the State of Indiana, and Dorothy Gardner, Auditor of the State of Indiana, As Members of the Indiana Revenue Board, Indiana Department of State Revenue, Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
George J. Zazas, Raymond Gray, Jr., of Barnes, Hickam, Pantzer & Boyd, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Lloyd DeWester, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellee.
The petition for rehearing filed by Edwin K. Steers, Jr., as Attorney General of the State of Indiana, asserts that, in part,
'Said decision and opinion is violative of the Indiana Constitution, Art. 4, Sec. 25, when the opinion admits:
'* * * that the Senate Journal shows that the bill did not receive 'a majority of all members elected to' the Senate, as provided in Article 4, Section 25 of the Constitution of Indiana', 'and * * * 'This record reveals that after the bill was amended radically at a conference of both houses, it was returned to the Senate and upon a vote of 25 ayes and 24 noes, the conference report was approved and the bill was then signed by the presiding officers of the respective houses as passed, as provided in Article 4, Section 25 of the state Constitution.''
The court, on rehearing, on reviewing the record finds that the record in fact does not contain the Senate Journal, and the previous opinion has therefore been amended on rehearing to delete the statement as to what the Senate Journal disclosed in this case and to substitute therefor a statement as to the contentions of appellees, as to the contents of the Senate Journal.
Although not mentioned in the petitions for rehearing, we have also corrected a minor clerical error by substituting the words twenty-four cents for twenty-five cents appearing in the opinion.
Subject to the foregoing comments, we now on rehearing adhere to the conclusions reached in our previous opinion.
Appellees, Dallas Sells, et al. filed 'A Motion for Leave to File an Amended Petition for Rehearing and For Stay of Execution of Judgment.' The appellees have raised some question as to the authority or propriety of this court in making corrections in the original opinion consideration of a petition for rehearing in this case. We denied the petition for rehearing, with a short opinion, noting the corrections that had been made. We said:
'The court, on rehearing, on reviewing the record finds that the record in fact does not contain the Senate Journal, and the previous opinion has therefore been amended on rehearing to delete the statement as to what the Senate Journal disclosed in this case and to substitute therefor a statement as to the contentions of appellees, as to the contents of the Senate Journal.
'Although not mentioned in the petitions for rehearing, we have also corrected a minor clerical error by substituting the words twenty-four cents for twenty-five cents appearing in the opinion.
'Subject to the foregoing comments, we now on rehearing adhere to the conclusions reached in our previous opinion.'
No one can seriously question our right or duty to make corrections in an opinion to conform to the record when they are brought to the attention of the court in a petition for rehearing. Of course, the very purpose of a petition for rehearing is to enable the court to make any modifications or corrections that it finds advisable. Such changes in the original opinion have in the past been made either by changing the original opinion directly or by reference in the opinion on rehearing. 1
We point out that whether the corrections in the original draft of the opinion had been made or not, the appellees were not prejudiced or misled. Even if we assumed, either through judicial notice or that the record in the trial court below showed the vote in the Senate Journal to be 25 ayes and 24 noes for the bill in question, we would still be compelled to deny ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
...the amount of the tax.' General Motors, 578 N.E.2d at 405 (quoting Welsh v. Sells (1963), 244 Ind. 423, 434-35, 192 N.E.2d 753, 759-60, 193 N.E.2d 359). If HSD's inputs are taxed, HSD will be likely to pass along the tax to its buyers in research laboratories. In turn, the labs will be like......
-
Taxpayers Lobby of Indiana, Inc. v. Orr
...to the creation of exemptions under the sales tax law. In Welsh v. Sells (1963), 244 Ind. 423, 192 N.E.2d 753, on rehearing, 244 Ind. 423, 193 N.E.2d 359, the Supreme Court recognized the discretion which the legislature has in creating such exemptions, as well as specifically recognizing t......
-
State ex rel. Morris v. Marsh
...758, 25 N.W.2d 1; Monaghan v. School District No. 1, 211 Or. 360, 315 P.2d 797; Welsh, Governor v. Sells, 244 Ind. 423, 192 N.E.2d 753, 193 N.E.2d 359; Kervick v. Bontempo, 29 N.J. 469, 150 A.2d 34; County School Bd. of Prince Edward County v. Griffin, 204 Va. 650, 133 S.E.2d 565; Mekota v.......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
...is a retail price increase greater than the amount of the tax.' Welsh v. Sells (1963), 244 Ind. 423, 434-35, 192 N.E.2d 753, 759-60, 193 N.E.2d 359 (quoting Indiana Commission on State Tax and Financing Policy First Report, "Current Studies of Indiana Tax Policy, The Retail Sales Tax" at 11......