Legal Opinion

Bolden v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided January 19, 1956No. 0-428PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

Petitioner has again attempted an appeal to this court under Rule 2-40. The papers which he has filed contain no proper assignment of errors nor proper bill of exceptions, nor do they in any other manner comply with the provisions of Rule 2-40.

The assignment of errors constitutes petitioner’s complaint in this court. It is a requisite to any appeal, and without a proper assignment of errors no jurisdiction is conferred upon this court. Davis v. Pelley (1952), 230 Ind. 248, 251, 102 N. E. 2d 910.

The petition herein is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Petition dismissed.

Note. — Reported in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Davis v. PelleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Anderson v. AndersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1956

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Anderson v. AndersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Hogan v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Employment & Training ServicesIndiana Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. Moore v. SpannIndiana Court of Appeals · 1973
  4. Davidson v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security DivisionIndiana Court of Appeals · 1963
  5. Graue v. BrownIndiana Court of Appeals · 1961

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API