Court Opinion

ID: 9524659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:55:34.233346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:22.356520
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Ax, P. J.
The appellant by its purported petition for rehearing has presented no issue for the consideration of this court by reason of its failure to comply with Rule 2-22 of our Supreme and Appellate Courts in “stating concisely the reasons why the decision is thought to be erroneous.”
Appellant has merely stated seventeen conclusions in its petition, none of which concisely point out why the decision of our court is thought to be erroneous.
A petition for a rehearing, under the rules of appellate procedure, is a pleading and not a mere argument or brief. The Baltimore, etc., R. W. Co. v. Conoyer (1897), 149 Ind. 524, 532, 48 N. E. 352.
“A petition for rehearing is for the purpose of giving the appellate court an opportunity to correct its own omissions or errors by having them called to its attention. The petition should ask for a rehearing only on points which were properly presented at the first hearing and were overlooked or improperly decided. State Board of Tax Com’rs. v. Stanley (1952) 231 Ind. 338, 108 N. E. 2d 624.” Flanagan, Wiltrout & Hamilton’s, Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice, (1959 Supp.), Ch. 57, §2824, p. 129.
*482In the case of Miller, etc. v. Ortman, etc., et al. (1956), 235 Ind. 641, 136 N. E. 2d 17, Judge Achor, speaking for the Supreme Court, in substance declared that petitions for rehearing consisting only of reargument of the respective cases on their merits, without the benefit of any concise statement of the reasons why the respective decisions were thought to be erroneous, presents no issue any more than would the argument portion of a brief without the assignment of errors.
In the case of Dorweiler et al. v. Sinks et al. (1958), 238 Ind. 368, 371, 151 N. E. 2d 142, again Judge Achor, speaking for the court on petition for rehearing where arguments followed in the same paragraph containing the reason why the decision was thought to be erroneous, stated, “Arguments SO' presented must be ignored as surplusage, and reasons for rehearing not supported by argument must be considered waived.” If we take the latter part of this statement at its apparent meaning, then it becomes necessary for all petitions for rehearing to be supported by argument. The purported petition for rehearing filed in this case must also fail for non-compliance with this statement of law, although Rule 2-22 does not specifically so state.
In order that lawyers in Indiana and also this court may be guided in the future, we are setting forth the appellant’s purported petition for rehearing:
“Appellant respectfully represents that the Court erred in its decision in the following respects:
1. The Court erred in holding that the trial court did not err in overruling the appellant’s motion to withdraw from the consideration of the jury certain allegations in appellee’s complaint.
2. The Court erred in holding that the trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion *483for directed verdict at the conclusion of appellee’s evidence.
3. The Court erred in holding that the trial court did not err in overruling the appellant’s motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence.
4. The Court erred in holding that the trial .court did not err in overruling the appellant’s motion made at the conclusion of all the evidence to withdraw from the consideration of the jury certain allegations in the appellee’s complaint.
5: The Court erred in holding that the verdict of the jury was sustained by sufficient evidence.
6. The Court erred in holding that the verdict of the jury was not contrary to law.
,7. The Court erred in holding in effect that appellant waived the issue that appellee had failed to prove her right to damages for negligence against the Fear Campbell Company, appellant’s assured.
8. The Court erred in holding in effect that the appellee had a right to rely upon the appellant’s adjuster’s statements in reference to her physical condition when the record discloses that the appellee had ample opportunity to and did visit doctors of her own choosing and was better informed as to her physical condition than appellant’s adjuster.
9. The Court erred in holding- that the testimony of appellee concerning her subsequent medical treatments and visits to various hospitals was competent on the issue of measure of damages.
10. The Court erred in holding that the testimony of the witness Wayne Wimmer was competent, relevant and had probative value.
,11. The Court erred in holding that the testimony of the witness Wayne Wimmer concerning payments received by the appellee for medical expense under the provisions of the insurance policy on her husband’s automobile were competent and relevant.
12. The Court erred in holding that the testimony of the appellee concerning money advanced Jaer husband for the repair of his automobile was competent.
*48413. The Court erred in holding that the testimony of the appellee, Amanda Smith, concerning the alleged misrepresentation and fraudulent acts of appellant’s adjuster were competent and had probative value.
14. The Court erred in holding that the testimony of the appellee concerning her x-ray pictures was competent.
15. The Court erred in holding that the trial court did not err in refusing- to give the instructions tendered and requested by appellant.
16. The Court erred in holding that the trial court did not err in giving the instructions tendered and requested by the appellee.
17. The Court erred in holding and deciding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Automobile Underwriters, Inc. vs. Delma Rich (1943), 222 Ind. 384 was not controlling and decisive of the issues in this cause.
WHEREFORE, Appellant asks that a rehearing be granted in this cause and that said cause be thereupon reversed.”
The matters set forth above in the purported petition are in substance a restatement of the grounds asserted in the appellant’s motion for a new trial and constitute nothing but an attempted reargument of the same maters disposed of in our opinion.
We are holding that none of the above reasons comply with Rule 2-22. The Rules of the Supreme Court have the force and effect of laws and are bind-ing on the courts as well as litigants. Guthrie v. Blakely et al. (1955), 127 Ind. App. 119, 141, 130 N. E. 2d 62, 131 N. E. 2d 357, (Rehearing denied January 19, 1956, T. D. December 21, 1956), and cases cited therein.
Petition for rehearing dismissed.
Note. — Reported in 166 N. E. 2d 341. Rehearing dis*485missed, 167 N. E. 2d 882. Transfer denied, 171 N. E. 2d 823.