Fisher v. Driskell
Indiana Court of Appeals
1Opinion
*33On Petition for Rehearing on Motion to Dismiss
Crumpacker, C. J.
Feeling that no appeal to this court should be dismissed upon purely technical grounds unless ruling precedent constrains us to do so we denied, without comment, the appellee’s motion to dismiss. To that ruling Royse, J., dissented in writing during the course of which he sought to make it appear, wholly without relevance to the validity of the ruling, that Bowen, Kelley, Pfaff and Crumpacker, JJ., are presently inconsistent with their past positions on the same question involved herein. That, of course, is not the fact as in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. GrayIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- James C. Curtis & Co. v. EmmerlingIndiana Supreme Court · 1941
- Matlaw Corp. v. War Damage Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1953
- Hoover v. ShafferIndiana Court of Appeals · 1948
- Local No. 1460 of Retail Clerks Union v. RothIndiana Supreme Court · 1941
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.