Court Opinion

ID: 9531457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:11:31.867675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:28.448825
License: Public Domain

*365On Petition for Rehearing
Martin, J.
The appellants having filed their petition for rehearing, the appellee filed its motion to dismiss appellants’ petition for rehearing on the ground that it does not comply with Rule 2-22 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
This rule in part states that:.
“Application for a rehearing of any cause shall be made by petition, separate from, the briefs, . . . stating concisely the reasons why the decisión is thought to be erroneous. Such application may, if desired be supported by briefs. . . .” (Our emphasis).
The appellants’ petition for rehearing comprises eight (8) paragraphs or specifications. No separate supporting briefs were filed along with the petition. Not only do the appellants, in their petition, state that our decision is erroneous and attempt to present reasons why, they also combine arguments in support of their grounds for rehearing, reiterate arguments on the merits of the case, cite Rules of the Supreme Court as well ás case authority, and make reference to portions of their original brief.
Such arguments intermingled with reasons why the decision is thought to be erroneous, all of which are contained within one petition, preclude the conciseness of such reasons as is required by Rule 2-22.
As stated in the case of Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Smith (1961), 241 Ind. 302, 306, 171 N. E. 2d 823,
“Consistent with the purpose of the rule, alleged errors in the opinion, not supported by a concise statement of the reasons in support thereof, are considered waived.”
*366This court has established the principal that a petition for rehearing must conform to Rule 2-22 and that it must not be argumentative. McClain’s Estate v. McClain (1962), 133 Ind. App. 645, 183 N. E. 2d 842, (rehearing dismissed), 184 N. E. 2d 281; Maryland Casualty Co. etc., v. Weiss (1959), 129 Ind. App. 481, 156 N. E. 2d 644, (rehearing dismissed), 157 N. E. 2d 840; Guthrie v. Blakely et al. (1955), 127 Ind. App. 119, 130 N. E. 2d 62 (transfer denied).
In addition, the Supreme Court of Indiana has held that reasons for an erroneous decision contained within a petition which are not concisely stated separately from the argument are ignored. Miller, etc. v. Ortman, etc., et al. (1956), 235 Ind. 641, 136 N. E. 2d 17.
In. a more recent case it has been recognized' that any argument must be submitted separately from the petition for rehearing. See Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Smith, supra.
Since the appellants’ petition fails to conform with Rule 2-22 by not concisely stating reasons why. the decision is thought to be erroneous separately from given arguments, the appellee’s motion to dismiss .appellants’ petition for rehearing is granted.
Petition for rehearing dismissed.
Faulconer, C. J., Carson and Prime, JJ. concur.'
Note. — Reported in 204 N. E. 2d 872. Rehearing Denied in 206 N. E. 2d 886.