Court Opinion

ID: 9526119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:12:36.260281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:27.410939
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
Smith, J.
The appellees. have filed their petition for rehearing consisting of five (5) specifications. The appellants, filed their motion to . dismiss, said rehearing petition on the ground that the- petition does not comply with the provision of Rule 2-22 of the Rules of the Supreme Court that:
*177“Applications for rehearing of any cause shall be made by petition, separate from the briefs . stating concisely the reasons why the decision is thought to be erroneous.” (emphasis supplied)
In Automobile Underwriters Inc. v. Smith (1961), 241 Ind. 302, 171 N. E. 2d 823, the Supreme Court said:
“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 rulé ..contemplates that in this manner, .the court shall • be .aided in .its consideration of,the .petition, ..Consistent wlth the .purpose of the rule, alleged error& in the opinion, not supported by a concise: state,-r. ment of the reasons in support thereof aré considered;waiy.ed....” (emphasis.supplied) ...
Since the appellee has not stated , any éoncise\ ireas sons, by which “the court shall be aided in its consideration of the petition” (Automobile Underwriters Inc., v. Smith, supra), we are forced tp. 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;
Bierly, P. J., Hunter and Mote, JJ.. concur;.
Note. — Reported in 205 N. E. 2d 329. Petition For Rehearing Reported in 206 N. E. 2d 389.