Court Opinion

ID: 9705587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:12:51.646086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:12.662455
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Mote, J.
Each appellant herein has filed a petition for rehearing.
Appellant, Whirlpool Corporation, has not submitted a brief in support of its petition but has presented arguments therein designed to support its contentions.
Appellant, City of Evansville’s petition for rehearing also contains arguments therein designed to support its said contentions and said appellant has also submitted an argumentative brief.
By petition, appellee seeks dismissal of the said petition because of asserted lack of compliance with Rule 2-22 of the Supreme Court of Indiana, adopted for our guidance.
Rule 2-22 of the Supreme Court, governing this matter, reads as follows:
“Rule 2-22. 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 within 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.”
*633It 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:
“. . . and 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.”
Failure to comply with Rule 2-22 of the Supreme Court of Indiana may cause dismissal of appellants’ petitions for rehearing.
It is not our purpose to violate the provisions of any rule, yet we are faced with the general rule that, although rules are adopted for the benefit of the court as well as for the use and benefit of the parties upon which they safely may rely, we do not wish to assume an arbitrary power of dismissal which finally would dispose of the appeal. Hence, we hereby deny the petitions for rehearing, as well as appellee’s petition for dismissal of said petitions for rehearing.
Smith, P. J., Bierly and Hunter, JJ., concur.
NOTE. — Reported in 210 N. E. 2d 672. Rehearing denied in 211 N. E. 2d 796.