Court Opinion

ID: 9523315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:38:56.853754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:53.183887
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Royse, C. J.
Appellees have filed a petition for rehearing in this case, which, in our opinion, does not show error and should be denied. Also, we believe the petition should be denied for another reason:
*141Rule 2-22, Rules of the Supreme Court, provides as follows:
“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 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 within 10 days after the filing of the petition.” (Our emphasis.)
The purported petition for rehearing contains more than twenty-three typewritten pages. It is not a concise statement of why they believe our decision is erroneous. It is primarily an argumentative brief which does not comply with the above rule.
The Rules of the Supreme Court have the force and effect of law and are binding on the courts as well as litigants. State ex rel. Woods v. Knox Circuit Court (1954), 233 Ind. 552, 121 N. E. 2d 880; State ex rel. Hunt v. Heil, Judge (1951), 229 Ind. 250, 97 N. E. 2d 634; McCague v. New York etc. R. Company (1947), 225 Ind. 83, 73 N. E. 2d 48; James C. Curtis & Company v. Emmerling et al. (1941), 218 Ind. 172, 31 N. E. 2d 57; Earl v. State (1926), 197 Ind. 703, 151 N. E. 3; Magnuson v. Billings (1899), 152 Ind. 177, 52 N. E. 803; Allmon v. Review Board of Indiana (1953), 124 Ind. App. 212, 116 N. E. 2d 115; Waters v. Perfect Circle Corporation (1953), 124 Ind. App. 70, 114 N. E. 2d 436; Witte v. Witte et al. (1953), 123 Ind. App. 644, 113 N. E. 2d 166; Hoover v. Shaffer et al. (1948), 118 Ind. App. 399, 80 N. E. 2d 569; Fetter v. Powers (1948), 118 Ind. App. 367, 78 N. E. 2d 555; Blake v. State (1943), 114 Ind. App. 1, 48 N. E. 2d 651; Heckman v. Howard et al. (1941), 109 Ind. App. 548, 36 N. E. 2d *142957; Hillyer, Administrator v. Boyd, et al. (1941), 109 Ind. App. 18, 32 N. E. 2d 93; Union Insurance Company v. Glover (1941), 109 Ind. App. 315, 34 N. E. 2d 934; Kubisiak v. Kubisiak (1941), 108 Ind. App. 664, 31 N. E. 2d 656; Thompson v. C. C. & St. L. Railway Co. (1937), 105 Ind. App. 97, 11 N. E. 2d 81; Martin v. Petgin (1937), 104 Ind. App. 308, 11 N. E. 2d 59; Miller v. Miller (1937), 104 Ind. App. 298, 10 N. E. 2d 746; Jones v. Moise (1937), 104 Ind. App. 390, 8 N. E. 2d 99; Lindeman v. Lindeman (1937), 103 Ind. App. 494, 8 N. E. 2d 1004; Humphrey v. Pleasure Park Company (1933), 97 Ind. App. 592, 187 N. E. 682; Gedney & Sons, Inc. v. Tinner et al. (1933), 95 Ind. App. 544, 183 N. E. 886; Loeser et al. v. Goldberg, et al. (1932), 95 Ind. App. 52, 182 N. E. 462; Bingham, Receiver v. Newton Bank et al. (1916), 63 Ind. App. 606, 114 N. E. 97; Chicago etc. Ry. Co. v. Priddy (1917), 65 Ind. App. 552, 108 N. E. 238; Rook et al. v. The Straus Bros. Company (1906), 60 Ind. App. 381, 110 N. E. 1006; Rooker v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. et al. (1933), 98 Ind. App. 478, 184 N. E. 306; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Surprise (1913), 53 Ind. App. 286, 97 N. E. 357; Griffith v. Felts et al. (1913), 52 Ind. App. 268, 99 N. E. 432; Price v. Swartz (1912), 49 Ind. App. 627, 97 N. E. 938; Webster v. Bligh (1912), 50 Ind. App. 56, 98 N. E. 73; Dillon, Administrator v. State (1911), 48 Ind. App. 495, 96 N. E. 171. Thus we see the rules have been so construed for nearly fifty years. We have been unable to find any decision of the Supreme or of this court holding otherwise.
This applies to each rule. It has been applied to the above quoted rule. Reed v. Kalfsbeck et al. (1897), 147 Ind. 148, 157, 46 N. E. 466; The Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railway Company v. Conoyer (1898), 149 Ind. 524, 532, 49 N. E. 452; Goodwin v. Goodwin, Executor (1874), 48 Ind. 584, 596; Terre Haute, Indi*143anapolis and Eastern Traction Company v. Scott (1930), 91 Ind. App. 690, 694, 172 N. E. 659 (Transfer denied).
In Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice, Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton, Vol. 2, §2833, pp. 397, 398, after quoting the rule it is stated the petition must state concisely why the decision is thought to be erroneous, citing numerous authorities.
We as an intermediate appellate tribunal, are bound by the ruling precedents of the Supreme Court. It may be that in the past petitions for rehearing that failed to comply with the rule have been acted on without question. That perhaps was caused by the failure of counsel to call the attention of the court to such violation. However, it is our duty to obey the rule and adhere to the construction placed upon it by the Supreme Court. We have no right or authority to amend, alter or ignore the rule. This is true whether the violation is brought to our attention by the parties or by this court.
For the reason the petition for rehearing does not comply with the foregoing rule, is presents no question. Therefore, the petition is denied.
Kelley, J. — Concurs in result with opinion; also
Bowen, J. — Concurs in result only, with opinion.