Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Arnett

500 N.E.2d 228, 1986 Ind. App. LEXIS 3152
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Arnett. Read the opinion of the Court — 1986 Ind. App. LEXIS 2897
Indiana Court of Appeals·Decided November 24, 1986·No. No. 3-885A216·Published

Opinion

OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

HOFFMAN, Judge.

On petition for rehearing plaintiffs assert error in the Appellate Court decision of August 28, 1986, 496 N.E.2d 1313, in that Vurpillat et al. v. Zehner et al. (1891), 2 Ind.App. 397, 28 N.E. 556 was incorrectly characterized as an Indiana Supreme Court opinion. This erroneous characterization was brought to the attention of the Court prior to the issuance of the opinion. Regretfully, uncorrected copies of the opinion were sent to the attorneys and the trial judge. However, a correct copy was sent to West Publishing Company, the official Indiana Cases publisher.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

STATON, P.J., and GARRARD, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Arnett, 500 N.E.2d 228, 1986 Ind. App. LEXIS 3152 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986).

500 N.E.2d 228 (Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Arnett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Arnett
496 N.E.2d 1313 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1986)
Vurpillat v. Zehner
28 N.E. 556 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1891)