Court Opinion

ID: 9707415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:11:06.820135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:32.431002
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Royse, P. J.
In its petition for rehearing appellant contends that where, as in this case, appellee did not file an answer brief, we must reverse if appellant has presented a prima facie case of reversible error. This is not correct. It is a matter of discretion with this court. City of Connersville v. Adams (1952), 122 Ind. App. 581, 105 N. E. 2d 912; Meadows et al. v. Hickman et al. (1947), 225 Ind. 146, 73 N. E. 2d 343. The majority opinion in effect held appellant had. not, by its brief, presented a prima facie case of reversible error.. .
It next complains because we cited cases referred to by appellee in the oral argument of this cause. It contends it was thereby denied the right to reply to these cases. In the oral argument counsel for appellant, in reply to the argument of appellee’s counsel, specifically stated that if appellee’s petition to file her brief was denied, he would answer the question presented by appellee orally. Otherwise, he desired time to file a reply brief. He then made an attempt to distinguish those cases. Under these circum*616stances he cannot now complain because we rejected his contention regarding those cases.
Other contentions made by appellant as grounds for a rehearing have been adequately covered in our original opinion.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Achor, C. J., dissents.
Note. — Reported in 106 N. E. 2d 464.