Court Opinion

ID: 9523352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:39:51.869962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:58.514526
License: Public Domain

On Petition For Rehearing
Bierly, J.
The initial appeal of this case was decided on October 10, 1968; see John S. Ross v. Robert G. Apple d/b/a Sheridan Airport, (1968), 143 Ind. App. 357, 240 N. E. 2d 825, 15 Ind. Dec. 409.
Thereafter, on October 28, 1968, appellee filed his petition for rehearing. No brief of supporting argument accompanied said petition. On November 4, 1968, the appellant filed a motion to dismiss petition for rehearing and a brief in support thereof. In his brief opposing appellee’s petition, appellant cites Sosa v. Young Flying Service (1967), 277 F. Supp. 554 (S.D., Texas), as additional authority in support of our original opinion.
Appellee’s petition contains lengthy quotations from our opinion, citations of authority and arguments of law. Rule 2-22 of the Supreme Court of Indiana says:
“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.” (Emphasis supplied).
This court has consistently held that the commingling of argument with a petition for rehearing is a sufficient ground for dismissing the petition for failure to conform to Rule 2-22. This rule of form has been restated in numerous reported cases; See: Dorweiler et al. v. *368Sinks (1958), 238 Ind. 368, 151 N. E. 2d 142; Automobile Underwriters, Incorporated v. Smith (1960), 131 Ind. App. 454, 167 N. E. 2d 882, transfer denied 241 Ind. 302, 171 N. E. 2d 823; In Re Estate of McClain, et al. v. McClain (1962), 133 Ind. App. 645, 183 N. E. 2d 842, rehearing denied 184 N. E. 2d 281; Haas v. Rathburn (1965), 137 Ind. App. 172, 206 N. E. 2d 389; Kleinknecht v. City of Evansville (1965), 137 Ind. App. 345, 206 N. E. 2d 886; Lakes v. Moore (1965), 137 Ind. App. 681, 207 N. E. 2d 846; and Custer v. Mayfield (1965), 138 Ind. App. 575, 207 N. E. 2d 221. For a very recent restatement of this rule, see Barkey v. Schermerhorn ( 1968), 143 Ind. App. 310, 241 N. E. 2d 82, 15 Ind. Dec. 350. In an earlier case, our Supreme Court held that reasons for an erroneous decision contained within a petition for rehearing which are not stated concisely and separately from the argument are to be ignored; Miller, etc. v. Ortman, etc., et al. (1956), 235 Ind. 641, 136 N. E. 2d 17. (Emphasis supplied.)
In denying transfer in the case of Automobile Underwriters, Incorporated v. Smith, supra, the Supreme Court set out Rule 2-22 in its entirety, and commented that:
“Under the above rule, alleged errors in the opinion, which are assigned as cause or grounds for rehearing, must be supported by a statement which concisely states ‘the reasons why the decision is thought to be erroneous.’ [Rule 2-22.] The rule contemplates that, in this manner, the court shall be aided in its consideration of the petition. 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. However, it is not necessary, as stated in the Dorweiler case, supra, that such reasons be supported by argument. In any event, however, if such reasons cannot be concisely stated, and it is considered that extensive argument in support of alleged errors in the opinion is desired such argument must be submitted separate from the petition.” (Their emphasis.)
In Haas v. Rathburn, supra, appellees filed their petition for rehearing. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss said peti*369tion for rehearing on the ground that said petition failed to comply with the provision of Rule 2-22 of the Supreme Count inthat:,.. . .. • . ; .... . ■: .*
“‘Application for a rehearing of.any cause shall be made by petition, separate from the briéfs * * * stating concisely the reasons why the decision is thought to be-.errqneous.’ ” (Their emphasis.)..... .
■' Smith, J., speaking for our court- (Bierly, P.J.j Hunter and Mote, JJ. concur), citing Automobile Underwriters, Incorporated v. Smith, supra, dismissed said petition, for rehearing, stating as follows:
“. . . we are forced to hold that appellees’ petition for rehearing does not comply with Rule 2-22 and presents no ground for a rehearing. The appellants’ motion to dismiss appellees’ petition for rehearing is granted.
“Petition for Rehearing dismissed.”
Thus, while it is not required that the “reasons why the decision is thought to be erroneous” be supported by argument, it is required that if a petitioning party wishes to so support his petition, said argument must be separate . from the petition in the form of a brief. It is well to suggest at this point that while it is quite possible that a given case may require no supporting brief, good judicial and appellate policy tends to encourage their use.
As we have stated, the- petition before us has incorporated within it considerable matter which is argumentative and should be included in and the subject of a separate supporting brief.
In Muniz etc. v. United States et al. (1958), 129 Ind. App. 433, 155 N. E. 2d 140, rehearing denied 156 N. E. 2d 641, it was said that: “This court on appeal. is always reluctant to decide a case upon failure to comply with the rules, but the rules have the force and effect of law and are binding on this court as well as the litigants. *370State of Indiana v. Allison (1956), 235 Ind. 294, 133 N. E. 2d 469.”
In accordance with Rule 2-22, and the line of case law cited herein, we are of the opinion that appellee’s petition for rehearing should be denied.
Further, we are of the opinion that in light of our denial of appellee’s petition for rehearing, appellant's motion to dismiss appellee’s petition for rehearing requires no action by this court.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Pfaff and Smith, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported in 240 N. E. 2d 825. Rehearing reported in 241 N. E. 2d 872.