Court Opinion

ID: 9745030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:29:31.729489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:55.032945
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Lowdermilk, J.
Beulah F. and Lilah Carlotta Hughes (the sisters), in their motion to dismiss the Petition for Rehearing of Mary Helen Hughes, point out that Mary Helen’s petition does not conform to Ind. Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 11(A).
In the statements of each of her four reasons why she believes the decision to be in error Mary Helen incorporates legal arguments extending at least one legal page in length.
Such statements of reasons must be concise; and lengthy legal arguments are to be made in a brief separate from the petition. AP. 11 (A).
Although we deny the sisters’ motion to dismiss, their objection is well taken; we hereby deny Mary Helen’s Petition for Rehearing. Wyler v. Lilly Varnish Co. (1969), 146 Ind. App. 91, 255 N.E.2d 123.
Petition for Rehearing denied.
Robertson, C.J. and Lybrook, J., concur.
Note. — Reported at 356 N.E.2d 225.