Spangler v. Daily

Indiana Supreme Court

Spangler v. Daily

151 N.E.2d 517, 238 Ind. 704, 1958 Ind. LEXIS 290

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJune 30, 1958

DocketNo. 0-519

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 N.E.2d 517 (Spangler v. Daily) 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

Spangler v. Daily, 151 N.E.2d 517, 238 Ind. 704, 1958 Ind. LEXIS 290 (Ind. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner, Charles R. Spangler, filed his petition herein for a writ of mandate to compel the Honorable John H. Daily, Judge Pro Tempore of the Marion County Criminal Court to hear a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, filed by petitioner on or about January 31, 1958.

[705]*705The .petition is fatally defective for each of the following reasons:

1. The petitioner does not bring his action in the name of the State of Indiana on the relation of the petitioner. Acts 1955, ch. 253, §1, p. 647, being §3-2201, Burns’ 1946 Repl. (Cum. Supp.); State ex rel. Ketchum v. Marshall (1952), 231 Ind. 70, 106 N. E. 2d 796; Daniels v. Allen Cir. Ct., Schannen, Judge (1953), 232 Ind. 702, 111 N. E. 2d 656; Millbrooks v. Pyle, Judge, etc. (1954), 233 Ind. 697, 120 N. E. 2d 175.

2. This matter purports to be a petition for writ of mandate. Rule 2-35 of the Supreme Court provides that petitions for writs of mandate shall be verified and filed in quintuplícate and if the relief sought relates to a proceeding in an inferior court, as does the petition herein, certified copies of all pleadings, orders and entries pertaining to the subject matter must be set out in the petition, or submitted as exhibits thereto. Petitioner herein has not complied with this rule. Rigg v. Thompson, Judge (1953), 232 Ind. 702, 112 N. E. 2d 290; State ex rel. Mejer v. Davie (1955), 234 Ind. 651, 129 N. E. 2d 799.

For the foregoing reasons the petition for writ of mandate is denied.

Note.—Reported in 151 N. E. 2d 517.

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

Per Curiam.

Petitioner, Charles R. Spangler, filed his petition herein for a writ of mandate to compel the Honorable John H. Daily, Judge Pro Tempore of the Marion County Criminal Court to hear a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, filed by petitioner on or about January 31, 1958.

[705]*705The .petition is fatally defective for each of the following reasons:

1. The petitioner does not bring his action in the name of the State of Indiana on the relation of the petitioner. Acts 1955, ch. 253, §1, p. 647, being §3-2201, Burns’ 1946 Repl. (Cum. Supp.); State ex rel. Ketchum v. Marshall (1952), 231 Ind. 70, 106 N. E. 2d 796; Daniels v. Allen Cir. Ct., Schannen, Judge (1953), 232 Ind. 702, 111 N. E. 2d 656; Millbrooks v. Pyle, Judge, etc. (1954), 233 Ind. 697, 120 N. E. 2d 175.

2. This matter purports to be a petition for writ of mandate. Rule 2-35 of the Supreme Court provides that petitions for writs of mandate shall be verified and filed in quintuplícate and if the relief sought relates to a proceeding in an inferior court, as does the petition herein, certified copies of all pleadings, orders and entries pertaining to the subject matter must be set out in the petition, or submitted as exhibits thereto. Petitioner herein has not complied with this rule. Rigg v. Thompson, Judge (1953), 232 Ind. 702, 112 N. E. 2d 290; State ex rel. Mejer v. Davie (1955), 234 Ind. 651, 129 N. E. 2d 799.

For the foregoing reasons the petition for writ of mandate is denied.

Note.—Reported in 151 N. E. 2d 517.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 N.E.2d 517, 238 Ind. 704, 1958 Ind. LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spangler-v-daily-ind-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack