Court Opinion

ID: 9526095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:12:13.62346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:23.547428
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
Mote, J.
The appellant having filed a petition designated as a “Petition for Rehearing,” the appellee filed his “Brief in Opposition to Petition for Rehearing.” Having considered said petition filed by appellant, it is the opinion of this Court that compliance with Rule 2-22 of the Rules of the Supreme Court is lacking.
This rule states:
“Rehearings. Application for a rehearing of any cause shall be made by petition, separate from the briefs, signed by counsel, and filed with the clerk within twenty (20) days from rendition of the decision, stating concisely the reasons why the decision is thought to be erroneous. Such application may, if desired, be supported by briefs, but such briefs will not be received after the time allowed for filing the petition. Parties opposing the rehearing may file briefs *580within ten (10) days after the filing of the petition. Adopted April 17, 1940. Effective September 2, 1940. Amended June 17, 1943. Effective September 6, 1943.”
Appellant has filed no separate brief in support of his petition and has obviously attempted to combine his brief with his statement of reasons for rehearing. In said petition appellant not only argues that our decision is erroneous and attempts to present reasons why, but also reiterates his contentions on the merits of the case already considered in the briefs filed by the parties heretofore, as well as including citations of various authorities to support such contentions.
It has been held by our courts that a petition for rehearing must conform to the aforesaid Rule 2-22 and that it must not be an argumentative brief. See Guthrie v. Blakely et al. (1956), 127 Ind. App. 119, 130 N. E. 2d 62, 131 N. E. 2d 357; Maryland Casualty Co., etc. v. Weiss (1958), 129 Ind. App. 481, 156 N. E. 2d 644, 157 N. E. 2d 840.
In the case of Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Smith (1961), 241 Ind. 302, 171 N. E. 2d 823, the Supreme Court stated:
“. . . if such reasons (referring to reasons why the decision is thought to be erroneous) cannot be concisely stated, and it is considered that extensive argument in support of alleged errors in the petition is desired, such argument must be submitted separate from the petition.”
Under the above language that “such argument must be submitted separate from the petition,” we conclude that appellant has not conformed to the requirements of Rule 2-22 and appellant’s Petition for Rehearing is dismissed.
Bierly, P. J., Hunter and Smith, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported in 205 N. E. 2d 836. Rehearing denied in 207 N. E. 2d 221.