Home/Indiana Supreme Court/Wabash Township v. Cooper

Wabash Township v. Cooper

47 N.E.2d 611, 221 Ind. 304, 1943 Ind. LEXIS 188
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedApril 1, 1943
DocketNo. 27,851.
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 47 N.E.2d 611 (Wabash Township v. Cooper) 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
Wabash Township v. Cooper, 47 N.E.2d 611, 221 Ind. 304, 1943 Ind. LEXIS 188 (Ind. 1943).

Opinion

*305 Shake, J.

This case is before us for the second time. See Hughes v. Fifer (1941), 218 Ind. 198, 31 N. E. (2d) 634. Apparently, it is an attack upon a judgment quieting the title of certain of - the appellees to the same real estate involved in the former review. That decision is, therefore, the law of the case insofar as it is applicable. Dickason v. Dickason (1942), 219 Ind. 683, 40 N. E. (2d) 965.

Only by searching the record could we determine who are necessary or proper parties. Fourteen persons are named in the assignment of errors, without designation as appellants or appellees. The appellants’ brief does not undertake to set out the text or the substance of the assignment of errors, the findings and judgment, or the motion for a new trial, except as the latter is quoted under Propositions and Authorities. This is not a compliance with the requirements of Rule’2-17(e) (1940 Revision).

While this court indulges a practical liberality in passing upon the sufficiency of briefs, the application of the rules may not be relaxed to the point of requiring us to search the record for grounds to reverse a judgment. Kimmick v. Linn (1940), 217 Ind. 485, 29 N. E. (2d) 207.

We are obliged to hold that the appellants’ brief is insufficient to present any question on the merits.

The judgment is affirmed.

Note.—Reported in 47 N. E. (2d) 611.

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

Related

City of Gary v. Belovich
544 N.E.2d 178 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1989)
Bandy v. MYERS
227 N.E.2d 183 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1967)
Hayes v. Pennick
204 N.E.2d 882 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1965)
Bennett v. Board of Zoning Appeals
198 N.E.2d 871 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1964)
Stillabower v. Lizart
159 N.E.2d 144 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1959)
Siebeking v. Ford, Admx., Etc.
148 N.E.2d 194 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1958)
Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. ANDERSON, ADMR. ETC.
142 N.E.2d 486 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1957)
Durham v. City of Indianapolis
108 N.E.2d 205 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1952)
Bromley v. City of Indianapolis
85 N.E.2d 93 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1949)
Ross v. Clore
74 N.E.2d 747 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1947)
Albertson v. Nix
57 N.E.2d 206 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 N.E.2d 611, 221 Ind. 304, 1943 Ind. LEXIS 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wabash-township-v-cooper-ind-1943.