Dover v. Reynolds

Indiana Supreme Court

Dover v. Reynolds

196 N.E.2d 76, 245 Ind. 33, 1963 Ind. LEXIS 243

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 12, 1963

DocketNo. 19,583

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 196 N.E.2d 76 (Dover v. Reynolds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dover v. Reynolds, 196 N.E.2d 76, 245 Ind. 33, 1963 Ind. LEXIS 243 (Ind. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

[34]*34On Petition To Transfer

Myers, J.

— This case, comes to us on petition to transfer. We concur in the opinion of the Appellate Court with the exception that it uses the case of State ex rel. Brosman v. Whitley Circuit Court et al. (1963), 186 N. E. 2d 881, as authority to support the proposition that when an answer is filed to a complaint the issues are closed. While the general proposition of law expressed in the Appellate Court’s opinion is correct (see Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, page 964 et seq., “issue”), the foregoing case cannot be cited as authority because this court has granted a petition for rehearing generally, and the case is before the court as if it had never been decided. Booher et al. v. Goldsborough et al. (1873), 44 Ind. 490; Bally et al. v. Guilford Twy. School Corp., etc. (1955), 234 Ind. 273, 126 N. E. 2d 13.

Petition to transfer denied.

Landis, C. J., and Achor and Arterburn, JJ., concur. Jackson, J., concurs in result.

Note. — Reported in 196 N. E. 2d 76.

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

[34]*34On Petition To Transfer

Myers, J.

— This case, comes to us on petition to transfer. We concur in the opinion of the Appellate Court with the exception that it uses the case of State ex rel. Brosman v. Whitley Circuit Court et al. (1963), 186 N. E. 2d 881, as authority to support the proposition that when an answer is filed to a complaint the issues are closed. While the general proposition of law expressed in the Appellate Court’s opinion is correct (see Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, page 964 et seq., “issue”), the foregoing case cannot be cited as authority because this court has granted a petition for rehearing generally, and the case is before the court as if it had never been decided. Booher et al. v. Goldsborough et al. (1873), 44 Ind. 490; Bally et al. v. Guilford Twy. School Corp., etc. (1955), 234 Ind. 273, 126 N. E. 2d 13.

Petition to transfer denied.

Landis, C. J., and Achor and Arterburn, JJ., concur. Jackson, J., concurs in result.

Note. — Reported in 196 N. E. 2d 76.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 N.E.2d 76, 245 Ind. 33, 1963 Ind. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dover-v-reynolds-ind-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack