Court Opinion

ID: 9525717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:06:55.694644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:16:43.417824
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Achor, J.
Appellee asks for a rehearing on the ground that the motion for change of judge was not “an appropriate pleading,” as required by the rule of the Municipal Court of Marion County.
It is true that a motion for change of judge is not a “pleading” in its strict or limited sense in that it does not contain a statement of contention designed to narrow the field of controversy to a single issue. See, §§2-1001 and 2-1003, Burns’ 1946 Repl., Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition.
However, the rule to plead now before us was a general rule. It did not call for an answer or any specific pleading, but only for “an appropriate pleading.” A motion for change of judge, authorized by statute, filed for the purpose of assuring the parties a hearing before an impartial tribunal was “an appropriate pleading,” within the general meaning of the term as used in the rule.1
The petition for rehearing is therefore denied.
Emmert, C. J., Arterburn, Bobbitt and Landis, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported in 145 N. E. 2d 426.
Rehearing denied 146 N. E. 2d 247.

. “The term ‘pleading,’ in its general sense, embraces all proceedings from the complaint until issue is joined, and, in a still broader sense, covers all proceedings during the progress of the trial from its inception to its termination.” 71 C. J. S., §4a, p. 21.