abrogation rule in Indiana

1997The Tort Claims Act was enacted by the legislature in 1974, in response to the abrogation of the defense of sovereign immunity in Campbell v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 55 , 284 N.E.2d 733 .

1997The Tort Claims Act was enacted by the legislature in 1974, in response to the abrogation of the defense of sovereign immunity in Campbell v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 55 , 284 N.E.2d 733 .

1967This Court said, in Levy v. Winget (1944), 115 Ind. App. 183, 186 , 57 N. E. 2d 629 : “. . . we feel that the 1943 Revision of the Rules has so simplified appellate procedure that to relax the clear, definite and simple requirements as to how the filing of a bill of exceptions must be evidenced would amount to an abrogation of the rule and not a mere construction or judicial interpretation thereof. . . .

1967This Court said, in Levy v. Winget (1944), 115 Ind. App. 183, 186 , 57 N. E. 2d 629 : “. . . we feel that the 1943 Revision of the Rules has so simplified appellate procedure that to relax the clear, definite and simple requirements as to how the filing of a bill of exceptions must be evidenced would amount to an abrogation of the rule and not a mere construction or judicial interpretation thereof. . . .

1987The abrogation of the doctrine of indivisibility as it relates to appeals from divorcee decrees was reaffirmed in Loeb v. Loeb (1973), 261 Ind. 193 , 301 N.E.2d 349 .

1987The abrogation of the doctrine of indivisibility as it relates to appeals from divorcee decrees was reaffirmed in Loeb v. Loeb (1973), 261 Ind. 193 , 301 N.E.2d 349 .

1981That is a particularly dubious result when measured against the recent criticism leveled at the “impact” rule by our Third District Court of Appeals in Kroger Co. v. Beck, (1978) Ind.App., 375 N.E.2d 640 , as well as the persuasive arguments for the abrogation of the rule advanced by a commentator of this jurisdiction.

1974The overruled motion to correct errors, whose overall purpose is to seek an abrogation of the doctrine of parental immunity in Indiana, presents three issues. 1 We affirm the trial court’s ruling. *499 The first of three major assignments of error alleges that the case of Smith v. Smith (1924), 81 Ind. App. 566 , 142 N.E. 128 , (the Indiana progenitor of parental immunity) is judicially unsound for the reason it is based upon neither statute nor English common law.

1974The overruled motion to correct errors, whose overall purpose is to seek an abrogation of the doctrine of parental immunity in Indiana, presents three issues. 1 We affirm the trial court’s ruling. *499 The first of three major assignments of error alleges that the case of Smith v. Smith (1924), 81 Ind. App. 566 , 142 N.E. 128 , (the Indiana progenitor of parental immunity) is judicially unsound for the reason it is based upon neither statute nor English common law.

1963State (1954), 233 Ind. 341, 344 , 118 N. E. 2d 493 , wherein Judge Bobbitt, speaking for the court, stated: “The rules of procedure must usually be observed by litigants and they may not be ignored by the court.” *665 Courts speak by their records and appellate tribunals can be informed only from the record made up of the entries by the Clerk and the bill of exceptions certified by the trial judge and duly filed.

1963State (1954), 233 Ind. 341, 344 , 118 N. E. 2d 493 , wherein Judge Bobbitt, speaking for the court, stated: “The rules of procedure must usually be observed by litigants and they may not be ignored by the court.” *665 Courts speak by their records and appellate tribunals can be informed only from the record made up of the entries by the Clerk and the bill of exceptions certified by the trial judge and duly filed.