Court Opinion

ID: 9712459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:54:26.116445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:12.424575
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
On petition for rehearing the Appellees Frank Ross, James Malayer, Charles Whitaker, Keith Ernst and John Long, as members of the board of trustees of the Putnam County Hospital challenge our published opinion of Carson v. Ross (1987), Ind.App., 509 N.E.2d 239. Appellees raise six (6) issues in their petition, numbered one (1) through five (5). However, none of *244the issues raised merits the grant of a rehearing. The issues numbered one (1) and five (5) are the only issues that merit our discussion. Accordingly, the others are not discussed.
In issue number one (1), the appel-lees challenge the use of the adjective "mistakenly". The appellees are correct in noting that the trial court did not use this adjective in its findings. Thus, our use of the term was improper. However, just as appellees' misnumbering of the issues in the petition for rehearing has no bearing on the merit of the petition, our improper use of the adjective "mistakenly" in our fact recitation has no bearing and does not alter our prior opinion. We held that the construction of the building was not for "hospital purposes". Therefore, whether the advertisement was placed mistakenly or not is irrelevant to our decision and a rehearing is not required.
In appellees numbered issue five (5) they challenge the court's failure to address the question of whether HCH Foundation was the alter-ego of HCH. This issue was not addressed because it was irrelevant due to the manner in which the case was decided. Issues which are unnecessary to a full and fair determination of an appeal will not be addressed. State ex rel. Clemens v. Kern (1939), 215 Ind. 515, 20 N.E.2d 514; Fort Wayne Patrolman's Benevolent Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne (1980), Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 630. Once we decided that the construction of the building was not for "hospital purposes" this issue became irrelevant. The decision on the applicability of Indiana Code section 16-12.1-1-2 was dispositive of the appeal. Therefore, the petition for rehearing is denied.
ROBERTSON and NEAL, JJ., concur.