Court Opinion

ID: 9713066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:06:28.499291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:16.071557
License: Public Domain

On Petition For Rehearing
Kelley, J.
— Appellant, in its petition for rehearing, says that our opinion in this appeal is in conflict with our holding in Chrysler Corporation v. Review Board, etc., (1962), 134 Ind. App. 1, 185 N. E. 2d 25, because, appellant asserts, our said opinion in the instant case “concedes at pages 2 and 3 . . . that the appellees were unemployed through their own fault . ...” A rereading of our said opinion fails to disclose to us any such concession.
Appellant further alleges that we were in error in holding that the appellees “were not employees of appellant within the self-evident meaning of said provision of said agreement” and cites us to the collective bargaining agreement “set out verbatim in appellant’s Reply Brief.” (Our emphasis). We stated in our opinion that said agreement was not set forth in appellant’s original brief. Appellant’s experienced counsel are aware, we are sure, that the reply brief cannot supply the omissions of the original brief. If not, we direct attention to: Macbeth Evans Glass Company v. Jones (1911), 176 Ind. 221, 223, 224, 95 N. E. 567; Rudolph v. Ayde (1925), 84 Ind. App. 202, 204, points 2-4, 149 N. E. 734; White et al. v. Sheetz (1896), 17 Ind. App. 699, 700, 45 N. E. 673; Works’ Ind. Practice, Lowe’s Rev., Vol. 4, §§70, 89, note 3, page 692.
Petition for rehearing is denied.
*479Mote, C. J., Carson, P. J., and Cooper, Pfaff and Ryan, JJ., concur; Clements and Hunter, JJ., dissent.
Note. — Reported in 191 N. E. 2d 32. Rehearing denied in 191 N. E. 2d 524.