Court Opinion

ID: 9724059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:43:09.734712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:54.965948
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Hunter, J.
This cause is before us on the appellee Public Service Commission’s petition for rehearing and appellants’ motion to dismiss said petition for rehearing.
Rule 2-22 of the Supreme Court provides that petitions for rehearing shall be filed within twenty (20) days of this court’s decision. Petitions for rehearing, also come within Supreme Court Rule 2-13 which provides that within the time allowed for filing petitions for rehearing, copies of the petition shall be served upon the parties affected or their attorneys of record. Muniz, etc. v. United States et al. (1958), 129 Ind. App. 433, 156 N. E. 2d 641; Norling v. Bailey (1951), 121 Ind. App. 457, 99 N. E. 2d 439.
*46The decision of the full court in this cause was filed October 14, 1964. On November 2, 1964 the appellee Commission .filed its petition for rehearing with proof of service showing service only on the counsel for the appellants. On November 10, 1964, appellants filed a motion to dismiss said petition for rehearing, alleging that appellee Commission had failed to serve the other appellees of record within said twenty (20) day period, and attaching three affidavits in support of said allegation. In an analogous situation on a petition to transfer, the Supreme Court dismissed for failure to serve copies of petition to transfer upon parties, appellee. Sizemore et al. v. Public Service Com. of Ind. et al. (1962), 242 Ind. 498, 180 N.E. 2d 232.
This court holds that the appellees Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated, Knightstown Telephone Company and General Telephone Company of Indiana, Inc. are. “parties affected” within the meaning of Rule 2-13, supra, and that this rule applies to service of copies of petitions for rehearing within said twenty (20) day period.
The Supreme Court rules being binding upon all litigants and the court, Guthrie v. Blakely et al. (1955), 127 Ind. App. 119, 130 N. E. 2d 62, 131 N. E. 2d 357; Muniz, etc. v. United States et al., supra, and the record being thus conclusive as'to appellee Commission’s failure to comply with said court rules, this court now sustains appellants’ motion to dismiss and holds that the appellee Commission’s petition for rehearing should be dismissed. Matlaw Corp. v. War Damage Corp. (1953), 123 Ind. App. 593, 112 N. E. 2d 233; Automobile Underwriters, Incorporated v. Smith (1960), 131 Ind. App. 454, 167 N. E. 2d 882 (1961), 241 Ind. 302, 171 N. E. 2d 823; Muniz, etc. v. United States et al., supra.
*47The court in conclusion calls to the attention of the appellee Commission that the filing, of a petition' for rehearing which does not comply with the provisions of the Rules of the Supreme Court does' not' extend the time’ stated.-in our decision for compliance with our order of remand. Furthermore, twenty (20) days ..after the date of our decision, the time for filing, a petition to modify,, extend' or stay the compliance date also expired. In the case of Pittsburgh, etc., Railway Company v. Mahoney, Administrator (1897), 148 Ind. 196, 207, 46 N. E. 917, 47 N. E. 464 on á motion to modify mandate, the Supreme -. Court stated:
“. . . Motion to modify .a mandate entered by this court in a cause, is in the nature óf a petition for rehearing, and may, at least during the time allowed for rehearing, be filed on behalf of a party who has not waived it.” See also Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton, Indiana Trial and Apellate Practice, §2838, P. 401.
In the instant case the appéllee Commission failed1 to petition this court to extend-or stay compliance with our order of remand.
Therefore, the appellee Commission's., petition for rehearing is dismissed and the Commission is directed to forthwith take steps to comply with this court’s order of remand of October 14,1964.
For the court in banc.
Note. — Reported in 201 N. E. 2d 574. Rehearing denied 203 N. E. 2d 204.

. “. . . the trial court may not refuse to consider and weigh competent, uncontradicted evidence, such a refusal by the trial court is not weighing the evidence but ignoring it. Egbert v. Egbert et al. (1948), 226 Ind. 346, 80 N. E. 2d 104.” Smith v. Thomas et al. (1955), 126 Ind. App. 59, 67, 130 N. E. 2d 85. “The trier of facts is not required to believe the testimony of every witness. Soucie v. State (1941), 218 Ind. 215, 31 N. E. 2d 1018. On the other hand the trial court may not refuse to consider and weigh competent, uncontradicted evidence. Egbert v. Egbert et al. (1948), 226 Ind. 346, 80 N. E. 2d 104.” Hagnes v. Brown (1949), 120 Ind. App. 184, 189; 88 N. E. 2d 795.