specification error in Indiana

1970Poehler v. State (1924), 194 Ind. 207 , 142 N. E. 140 .” *426 *425 Therefore, since appellant failed to object during the course of the trial to the admission of the testimony relating to his *426 alleged confession, failed to move to strike said testimony, and failed to include in Ms motion for new trial or the attached memorandum the allegation that the trial court erred in admitting said evidence, this specification of error cannot now be considered by this Court.

1970Poehler v. State (1924), 194 Ind. 207 , 142 N. E. 140 .” Therefore, since appellant failed to object during the course of the trial to the admission of the testimony given by the arresting officers, failed to move to strike said testimony, and failed to include in his motion for new trial or the attached memorandum the allegation that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence arrived at in violation of his constitutional guarantees, this specification of error cannot now be considered by this Court.

1997As noted in Sedelbauer v. State (1983) Ind.App., 455 N.E.2d 1159, 1163 , quoting from Davis v. State (1976) Ind., 265 Ind. 476 , 355 N.E.2d 836 : “We invoke Appellate Rule 8.3 to hold an appellant’s specification of error waived only when we find his non-compliance with the rule sufficiently substantial to impede our consideration of the issue raised.

1997As noted in Sedelbauer v. State (1983) Ind.App., 455 N.E.2d 1159, 1163 , quoting from Davis v. State (1976) Ind., 265 Ind. 476 , 355 N.E.2d 836 : “We invoke Appellate Rule 8.3 to hold an appellant’s specification of error waived only when we find his non-compliance with the rule sufficiently substantial to impede our consideration of the issue raised.

1997As noted in Sedelbauer v. State (1983) Ind.App., 455 N.E.2d 1159, 1163 , quoting from Davis v. State (1976) Ind., 265 Ind. 476 , 355 N.E.2d 836 : “We invoke Appellate Rule 8.3 to hold an appellant’s specification of error waived only when we find his non-compliance with the rule sufficiently substantial to impede our consideration of the issue raised.

1995The defendant claims that this omission was substandard and prejudicial because on direct appeal, this Court found nothing in the record to disclose any "resulting inadequacy of representation." Spranger, 498 N.E.2d at 934 .

1987T.R. 59; Cunningham v. Associates Capitol Services Corp. (1981), Ind.App., 421 N.E.2d 681 .

1983Jones v. City of Logansport, (1982) Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 666 .

1977A case as recent as 1968 held that a specification of error in the motion for new trial declaring “the judgment in this matter is contrary to law” presented no question on appeal since the statute did not recognize such a cause for a new trial. 2 Shuman v. Hauk (1968), 142 Ind. App. 220 , 233 N.E.2d 678 .

1977A case as recent as 1968 held that a specification of error in the motion for new trial declaring “the judgment in this matter is contrary to law” presented no question on appeal since the statute did not recognize such a cause for a new trial. 2 Shuman v. Hauk (1968), 142 Ind. App. 220 , 233 N.E.2d 678 .

1975Further, it must be noted that the jury found against Chamberlain on the issue of liability and thus any error in the giving of an instruction on damages would necessarily be harmless Kosanovic v. Ivey (1968), 142 Ind. App. 481 , 235 N.E.2d 501 ; Adkins v. Poparad (1943), 222 Ind. 16 , 51 N.E.2d 476 .

1975Further, it must be noted that the jury found against Chamberlain on the issue of liability and thus any error in the giving of an instruction on damages would necessarily be harmless Kosanovic v. Ivey (1968), 142 Ind. App. 481 , 235 N.E.2d 501 ; Adkins v. Poparad (1943), 222 Ind. 16 , 51 N.E.2d 476 .

1975VerHulst v. Hoffman (1972), 153 Ind. App. 64 , 286 N.E.2d 214, 216 .

1975VerHulst v. Hoffman (1972), 153 Ind. App. 64 , 286 N.E.2d 214, 216 .

1975Further, it must be noted that the jury found against Chamberlain on the issue of liability and thus any error in the giving of an instruction on damages would necessarily be harmless Kosanovic v. Ivey (1968), 142 Ind. App. 481 , 235 N.E.2d 501 ; Adkins v. Poparad (1943), 222 Ind. 16 , 51 N.E.2d 476 .

1975Further, it must be noted that the jury found against Chamberlain on the issue of liability and thus any error in the giving of an instruction on damages would necessarily be harmless Kosanovic v. Ivey (1968), 142 Ind. App. 481 , 235 N.E.2d 501 ; Adkins v. Poparad (1943), 222 Ind. 16 , 51 N.E.2d 476 .

1972DelMar Garage, Inc. v. Boden (1932), 95 Ind. App. 317, 323 , 179 N. E. 729 .

1972DelMar Garage, Inc. v. Boden (1932), 95 Ind. App. 317, 323 , 179 N. E. 729 .

1972Langford v. Anderson Banking Co. (1970), 146 Ind. App. 677 , 258 N. E. 2d 60 .

1972Langford v. Anderson Banking Co. (1970), 146 Ind. App. 677 , 258 N. E. 2d 60 .

1971State Life Insurance Company v. Sare (1938), 215 Ind. 68 , 17 N. E. 2d 100 ; * * *” Nunemaker v. Glassburn (1965), 137 Ind. App. 655 , 210 N. E. 2d 668 , which was, of course, before the new Rules, was a case wherein the only specification of error was overruling the motion for new trial and which motion alleged (1) the damages awarded by the court were excessive and (2) and (3) being the finding of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law.

1971State Life Insurance Company v. Sare (1938), 215 Ind. 68 , 17 N. E. 2d 100 ; * * *” Nunemaker v. Glassburn (1965), 137 Ind. App. 655 , 210 N. E. 2d 668 , which was, of course, before the new Rules, was a case wherein the only specification of error was overruling the motion for new trial and which motion alleged (1) the damages awarded by the court were excessive and (2) and (3) being the finding of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law.

1971State Life Insurance Company v. Sare (1938), 215 Ind. 68 , 17 N. E. 2d 100 ; * * *” Nunemaker v. Glassburn (1965), 137 Ind. App. 655 , 210 N. E. 2d 668 , which was, of course, before the new Rules, was a case wherein the only specification of error was overruling the motion for new trial and which motion alleged (1) the damages awarded by the court were excessive and (2) and (3) being the finding of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law.

1971State Life Insurance Company v. Sare (1938), 215 Ind. 68 , 17 N. E. 2d 100 ; * * *” Nunemaker v. Glassburn (1965), 137 Ind. App. 655 , 210 N. E. 2d 668 , which was, of course, before the new Rules, was a case wherein the only specification of error was overruling the motion for new trial and which motion alleged (1) the damages awarded by the court were excessive and (2) and (3) being the finding of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law.

1970SURPRISE OR ACCIDENT To merit a new trial on this specification of error the surprise must have been one which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against, Working v. Garn, et al. (1897), 148 Ind. 546 , 47 N. E. 951 .

1970SURPRISE OR ACCIDENT To merit a new trial on this specification of error the surprise must have been one which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against, Working v. Garn, et al. (1897), 148 Ind. 546 , 47 N. E. 951 .

1968Jackson v. Johnson (1966), 140 Ind. App. 70 , 222 N. E. 2d 409 ; City of Mitchell v. Stevenson (1964), 136 Ind. App. 340 , 201 N. E. 2d 58 ; Silverstein v. Central Furniture Co., Inc. (1960), 131 Ind. App. 170 , 162 N. E. 2d 690 .

1968Jackson v. Johnson (1966), 140 Ind. App. 70 , 222 N. E. 2d 409 ; City of Mitchell v. Stevenson (1964), 136 Ind. App. 340 , 201 N. E. 2d 58 ; Silverstein v. Central Furniture Co., Inc. (1960), 131 Ind. App. 170 , 162 N. E. 2d 690 .

1968Jackson v. Johnson (1966), 140 Ind. App. 70 , 222 N. E. 2d 409 ; City of Mitchell v. Stevenson (1964), 136 Ind. App. 340 , 201 N. E. 2d 58 ; Silverstein v. Central Furniture Co., Inc. (1960), 131 Ind. App. 170 , 162 N. E. 2d 690 .

1968Jackson v. Johnson (1966), 140 Ind. App. 70 , 222 N. E. 2d 409 ; City of Mitchell v. Stevenson (1964), 136 Ind. App. 340 , 201 N. E. 2d 58 ; Silverstein v. Central Furniture Co., Inc. (1960), 131 Ind. App. 170 , 162 N. E. 2d 690 .

1968Watson v. Watson (1957), 127 Ind. App. 591 , 144 N. E. 2d 529 , and authorities cited therein.

1968Watson v. Watson (1957), 127 Ind. App. 591 , 144 N. E. 2d 529 , and authorities cited therein.

1968Jackson v. Johnson (1966), 140 Ind. App. 70 , 222 N. E. 2d 409 ; City of Mitchell v. Stevenson (1964), 136 Ind. App. 340 , 201 N. E. 2d 58 ; Silverstein v. Central Furniture Co., Inc. (1960), 131 Ind. App. 170 , 162 N. E. 2d 690 .

1968Jackson v. Johnson (1966), 140 Ind. App. 70 , 222 N. E. 2d 409 ; City of Mitchell v. Stevenson (1964), 136 Ind. App. 340 , 201 N. E. 2d 58 ; Silverstein v. Central Furniture Co., Inc. (1960), 131 Ind. App. 170 , 162 N. E. 2d 690 .

1968Error of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application; . . .” This court in Wiggins v. Rose (1967), 141 Ind. App. 569 , 230 N. E. 2d 636 , held that a specification of error is insufficient as a cause for a motion for a new trial when it does not set forth any of the correct statutory causes as provided in Burns’ Ind. Stat., § 2-2401 (1946 Repl.).

1968Error of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application; . . .” This court in Wiggins v. Rose (1967), 141 Ind. App. 569 , 230 N. E. 2d 636 , held that a specification of error is insufficient as a cause for a motion for a new trial when it does not set forth any of the correct statutory causes as provided in Burns’ Ind. Stat., § 2-2401 (1946 Repl.).

1960Ruegamer v. Haynes Stellite Company (1960), 130 Ind. App. 695 , 167 N. E. 2d 725 ; Von Cline v. Cline, Admrx. (1960), 130 Ind. App. 473 , 165 N. E. 2d 608 .

1960Ruegamer v. Haynes Stellite Company (1960), 130 Ind. App. 695 , 167 N. E. 2d 725 ; Von Cline v. Cline, Admrx. (1960), 130 Ind. App. 473 , 165 N. E. 2d 608 .

1960Ruegamer v. Haynes Stellite Company (1960), 130 Ind. App. 695 , 167 N. E. 2d 725 ; Von Cline v. Cline, Admrx. (1960), 130 Ind. App. 473 , 165 N. E. 2d 608 .

1960Ruegamer v. Haynes Stellite Company (1960), 130 Ind. App. 695 , 167 N. E. 2d 725 ; Von Cline v. Cline, Admrx. (1960), 130 Ind. App. 473 , 165 N. E. 2d 608 .

1935That being true, and the sole specification of error assigned relating to an alleged overruling of the motion for new trial, no basis for an *471 appeal has been established (Craft v. Stone [1920], 74 Ind. App. 71 , 124 N. E. 473 ), and the appeal should be dismissed.

1935That being true, and the sole specification of error assigned relating to an alleged overruling of the motion for new trial, no basis for an *471 appeal has been established (Craft v. Stone [1920], 74 Ind. App. 71 , 124 N. E. 473 ), and the appeal should be dismissed.

1927If, however, it is assumed that the ruling of the court sustained appellees’ motion for judgment at the close of appellant’s evidence, then it is our opinion, considering the matter under the specification th'at the court erred in sustaining the motion, that such motion was in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence and that the court in considering it should have considered only the evidence tending to sustain the complaint; Cur ryer v. Oliver (1901), 27 Ind. App. 424 , 60 N. E. 364 , 61 N. E. 593 ; Bilskie v. Bilskie (1919), 69 Ind. App. 595 , 122 N. E. 436 ; such a motion admitting, for th

1927If, however, it is assumed that the ruling of the court sustained appellees’ motion for judgment at the close of appellant’s evidence, then it is our opinion, considering the matter under the specification th'at the court erred in sustaining the motion, that such motion was in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence and that the court in considering it should have considered only the evidence tending to sustain the complaint; Cur ryer v. Oliver (1901), 27 Ind. App. 424 , 60 N. E. 364 , 61 N. E. 593 ; Bilskie v. Bilskie (1919), 69 Ind. App. 595 , 122 N. E. 436 ; such a motion admitting, for th

1927If, however, it is assumed that the ruling of the court sustained appellees’ motion for judgment at the close of appellant’s evidence, then it is our opinion, considering the matter under the specification th'at the court erred in sustaining the motion, that such motion was in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence and that the court in considering it should have considered only the evidence tending to sustain the complaint; Cur ryer v. Oliver (1901), 27 Ind. App. 424 , 60 N. E. 364 , 61 N. E. 593 ; Bilskie v. Bilskie (1919), 69 Ind. App. 595 , 122 N. E. 436 ; such a motion admitting, for th

1927If, however, it is assumed that the ruling of the court sustained appellees’ motion for judgment at the close of appellant’s evidence, then it is our opinion, considering the matter under the specification th'at the court erred in sustaining the motion, that such motion was in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence and that the court in considering it should have considered only the evidence tending to sustain the complaint; Cur ryer v. Oliver (1901), 27 Ind. App. 424 , 60 N. E. 364 , 61 N. E. 593 ; Bilskie v. Bilskie (1919), 69 Ind. App. 595 , 122 N. E. 436 ; such a motion admitting, for th

1927If, however, it is assumed that the ruling of the court sustained appellees’ motion for judgment at the close of appellant’s evidence, then it is our opinion, considering the matter under the specification th'at the court erred in sustaining the motion, that such motion was in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence and that the court in considering it should have considered only the evidence tending to sustain the complaint; Cur ryer v. Oliver (1901), 27 Ind. App. 424 , 60 N. E. 364 , 61 N. E. 593 ; Bilskie v. Bilskie (1919), 69 Ind. App. 595 , 122 N. E. 436 ; such a motion admitting, for th

1911Rule 22, Clause 5, of Supreme and Appellate Courts; Springer v. Bricker (1905), 165 Ind. 532 , 76 N. E. 114 ; Kilmer v. Moneyweight Scale Co. (1905), 36 Ind. App. 568 , 76 N. E. 271 .

1911Rule 22, Clause 5, of Supreme and Appellate Courts; Springer v. Bricker (1905), 165 Ind. 532 , 76 N. E. 114 ; Kilmer v. Moneyweight Scale Co. (1905), 36 Ind. App. 568 , 76 N. E. 271 .