Indiana Supreme Court, 1943

Wabash Township v. Cooper

Indiana Supreme Court · Decided April 1, 1943 · Shake

47 N.E.2d 611; 221 Ind. 304; 1943 Ind. LEXIS 188 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Stillabower v. Lizart (Ind. Ct. App. 1959)
Siebeking v. Ford, Admx., Etc. (Ind. Ct. App. 1958)
City of Gary v. Belovich (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)
Bandy v. MYERS (Ind. Ct. App. 1967)
Hayes v. Pennick (Ind. Ct. App. 1965)
Bennett v. Board of Zoning Appeals (Ind. 1964)
Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. ANDERSON, ADMR. ETC. (Ind. Ct. App. 1957)
Durham v. City of Indianapolis (Ind. Ct. App. 1952)
Bromley v. City of Indianapolis (Ind. Ct. App. 1949)
Ross v. Clore (Ind. Ct. App. 1947)
Albertson v. Nix (Ind. Ct. App. 1944)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.