Court Opinion

ID: 9745381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:52:22.548446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:59.673520
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Wiltkout, J.
Appellants on May 23, 1951, and within the time allowed for doing so, filed their petition for a rehearing. At no time has proof of the service of a copy of the petition been filed.
Appellees have filed their motion to dismiss the petition, and therein state that a copy of the petition was served on them, but that the service was some seven days after the time allowed for filing a petition for rehearing.
It was formerly held that no notice of the filing of a petition for rehearing was necessary. Hanley v. Mason (1908), 42 Ind. App. 312, 85 N. E. 381, 732. Prior to 1943, Rule 2-13 of the Rules of the Supreme Court provided that, “Notice to. the party affected shall be given of all motions and petitions, except petitions for rehearing . . .” But in 1943, this rule was changed so as to eliminate the exception as to petitions for rehearing. It now reads:
“Within the time allowed for filing motions and petitions, and briefs in support thereof, ■ copies shall be served upon the parties affected, or their attorneys of record, and proof of such service shall be made at the time of filing or promptly thereafter.”
*463Proof of service of the copy of the petition not having been made as required by Rule 2-13, the petition for rehearing is dismissed.
Note. — Reported in 99 N. E. 2d 439.