Anderson v. Irwin, 234 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. Ct. App. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Anderson v. Irwin, 234 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. Ct. App. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1970 · …assignment of errors amendment ≈ altered
24 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Christlieb v. Overmyer (indctapp, 1969-11-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Christlieb v. Overmyer
Ind. Ct. App. · 1969 · confidence medium
See: Anderson v. Irwin, 142 Ind. App. 302 , 234 N. E. 2d 276, 277 (1968).
cited Cited "see" Trivett v. Trivett
Ind. Ct. App. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Anderson v. Irwin (1968), 142 Ind. 302 , 234 N. E. 2d 276 .
cited Cited "see" In re the Proposed Sanitary Sewer
Ind. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sanitary Sewer (1968), 142 Ind. App. 301 , 234 N. E. 2d 276 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Anderson
v.
Irwin
767A22.
Indiana Court of Appeals.
Feb 29, 1968.
234 N.E.2d 276
1968 Ind. App. LEXIS 559
Lawrence D. Renfro, of New Castle, for appellants., Scotten and Hinshaw, of New Castle, and Seif res, Hollingsworth & Martin, of Lebanon, for appellee.
Faulconer.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

On Motion to Dismiss

Faulconer, J.

— This matter is before the court on appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal or, in the alternative, that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed for the reason of appellants’ non-compliance with Rule 1-14B, Rules of the Supreme Court, 1967 Revision. Appellants have filed no answer brief in opposition to this motion. Rule 1-14B, supra, which became effective March 1, 1967, states, in part,

“Whenever a new trial is requested on the ground or grounds ‘that the verdict or decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law,’ the moving party shall file a memorandum stating specifically under such[*303] itemized cause wherein such evidence is insufficient or the verdict or decision is contrary to law. . . .”

The record in this cause reveals that appellants’ motion for new trial was filed March 13, 1967, and thus falls within the ambit of the above rule. Appellants’ motion, omitting the caption and signature, reads as follows:

“Comes now the defendants in the above-entitled cause and move the court for a new trial thereof for the following reasons, to-wit:
“1. The decision or finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence.
“2. The decision and finding of the court is contrary to law and the principals of law applicable to this particular case involving tax title deeds.
“WHEREFORE the defendants pray the Court for a new trial of said cause.”

The above are the only reasons given as grounds for the granting of the motion for new trial. Nowhere in the transcript or appellants’ brief can a memorandum be found as required in Rule 1-14B, supra. Furthermore, this rule also states that,

“The party filing such motion shall be deemed to have waived any ground not specified in the memorandum.”

Since appellants have failed to file a memorandum pointing out the insufficiency of the evidence or wherein the decision is contrary to law, any alleged error on these grounds must be deemed waived. Therefore, there being no other grounds specified in the motion for new trial, the assignment of errors presented by the appellants that “[t]he court erred in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial” presents no question for the consideration of this court, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

[*304] Carson, C. J., Bierly, Cooper, Pfaff, Prime and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cook, P. J., not participating.

Note. — Reported in 234 N. E. 2d 276.