Clem v. Hancock

Indiana Supreme Court

Clem v. Hancock

170 N.E.2d 904, 241 Ind. 703, 1961 Ind. LEXIS 190

Indiana Supreme Court·Decided January 5, 1961·No. No. 0-611·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam

Petitioner has filed pro se in forma pauperis, a paper which purports to be an appeal from a judgment in contempt entered against petitioner in the Vanderburgh Probate Court.

The paper does not in anywise conform with the requirements of Rule 2-35 for the filing of a transcript of record, nor does it describe the nature of the action which resulted in judgment for contempt.

Furthermore, it is shown to the court that the proceedings to which this purported original action is related has been dismissed and therefore any issue relative thereto is now moot.

Therefore the paper hereinabove referred to is ordered stricken from the files of this court.

Note. — Reported in 170 N. E. 2d 904.

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

Per Curiam

Petitioner has filed pro se in forma pauperis, a paper which purports to be an appeal from a judgment in contempt entered against petitioner in the Vanderburgh Probate Court.

The paper does not in anywise conform with the requirements of Rule 2-35 for the filing of a transcript of record, nor does it describe the nature of the action which resulted in judgment for contempt.

Furthermore, it is shown to the court that the proceedings to which this purported original action is related has been dismissed and therefore any issue relative thereto is now moot.

Therefore the paper hereinabove referred to is ordered stricken from the files of this court.

Note. — Reported in 170 N. E. 2d 904.

Clem v. Hancock, 170 N.E.2d 904, 241 Ind. 703, 1961 Ind. LEXIS 190 (Ind. 1961).

Pincite

170 N.E.2d 904 (Clem v. Hancock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related