Legal Opinion

Voss v. Balz

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided February 3, 1932No. 25,992PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Per curiam

The appellees have filed their motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, the contention of the appellees being that “where the assignment of errors has omitted naming certain necessary appellees, as was done in this cause, the Supreme Court does not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal, and may not, after the expiration of the time for an appeal, permit additional appellees to be named, and such is the situation in this case.”

Appellant has filed his motion to amend the assignment of errors by inserting the names of certain persons who are necessary parties to this appeal.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lauster v. MeyersIndiana Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Prough v. ProughIndiana Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Keiser v. HowardIndiana Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Public Service Commission v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Baugher v. Hall, Receiver, Etc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Ex Parte Fennig, Ex Parte WhippleIndiana Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Haney v. Estate of DennyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1963
  5. Thompson v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1937

12 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