State ex rel. Hurt v. Smith

Indiana Supreme Court

State ex rel. Hurt v. Smith

168 N.E.2d 70, 240 Ind. 709, 1960 Ind. LEXIS 260

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJune 29, 1960

DocketNo. 29,936

StatusPublished

This text of 168 N.E.2d 70 (State ex rel. Hurt v. Smith) 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

State ex rel. Hurt v. Smith, 168 N.E.2d 70, 240 Ind. 709, 1960 Ind. LEXIS 260 (Ind. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam

The petitioners have filed a “Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus” in which they ask that the respondent judge be required to rule upon a motion to quash in an action in which a “Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” was filed. The petitioners in this action have filed no “certified copies of all pleadings, orders and entries pertaining to the subject matter” in the inferior court. We have no certified copies showing that any action is pending in any lower court; that any motion to quash was filed; that any court has refused to rule on such a motion or that “the duty to act has been presented and brought to the attention of the trial court.” It is therefore quite evident that the petitioners herein have failed to comply with Rule 2-85 in a number of particulars.

The petition is denied.

Jackson, C. J., concurs in result.

Note. — Reported in 168 N. E. 2d 70.

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

Per Curiam

The petitioners have filed a “Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus” in which they ask that the respondent judge be required to rule upon a motion to quash in an action in which a “Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” was filed. The petitioners in this action have filed no “certified copies of all pleadings, orders and entries pertaining to the subject matter” in the inferior court. We have no certified copies showing that any action is pending in any lower court; that any motion to quash was filed; that any court has refused to rule on such a motion or that “the duty to act has been presented and brought to the attention of the trial court.” It is therefore quite evident that the petitioners herein have failed to comply with Rule 2-85 in a number of particulars.

The petition is denied.

Jackson, C. J., concurs in result.

Note. — Reported in 168 N. E. 2d 70.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.E.2d 70, 240 Ind. 709, 1960 Ind. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hurt-v-smith-ind-1960.