Legal Opinion

Hayes v. Adams

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 16, 1943No. 27,823PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSwaim, C. J.

Appellants were remonstrators in a drainage proceeding. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, one of the grounds therefor being that this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal on its merits because not all parties .to the judgment have been named in the assignment of errors. Appellees contend that more than ninety persons listed in the petition to dismiss were parties to the judgment but are not named in the assignment of errors.

Rule 2-8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1940 Revision, provides that “The assignment of errors shall contain the full names of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Magnuson v. BillingsIndiana Supreme Court · 1899
  2. James C. Curtis & Co. v. EmmerlingIndiana Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Voss v. BalzIndiana Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Ex Parte Fennig, Ex Parte WhippleIndiana Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Keiser v. HowardIndiana Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Baugher v. Hall, Receiver, Etc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Otolski v. Estate of NowickiIndiana Court of Appeals · 1959
  3. Haney v. Estate of DennyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1963
  4. Diggs v. BobichIndiana Court of Appeals · 1962
  5. Haney v. Estate of DennyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API