From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saloom v. Holder

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Mar 14, 1974
158 Ind. App. 177 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974)

Summary

holding that "[t]hrough the years Indiana courts have consistently held that a constitutional question is not properly raised on appeal if the trial court was not apprised of specific constitutional provisions upon which a party relies in asserting that legislation is unconstitutional"

Summary of this case from Hochstedler v. St. Joseph County

Opinion


307 N.E.2d 890 (Ind.App. 2 Dist. 1974) 158 Ind.App. 177 Elizabeth SALOOM, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. John R. HOLDER and the City of Indianapolis, Appellees (Defendants Below). No. 572A215. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District. March 14, 1974

Page 891

        R. Davy Eaglesfield, III, Barnes, Hickam, Pantzers&sBoyd, Indianapolis, for appellant.

       Charles B. Huppert, Deputy Corp. Counsel, Gary R. Landau, Corp. Counsel, Indianapolis, for appellees.

       ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

       BUCHANAN, Judge.

       Appellant (Saloom) asserts in her Petition For Rehearing that we refused to state in our opinion whether the violation of certain municipal ordinances were misdemeanors or civil offenses. Neither this issue, nor any variation of it, was argued by Saloom.

       The Statement of Issues in Saloom's brief bearing on this question (Issues, 1, 2, 3, and 4) are framed exclusively in terms of the assumption that violation of the ordinances in question were misdemeanors. Saloom's entire argument in her brief continues in the same vein, e.g., 'Appellant and appellees agree that the municipal ordinances under which appellant was arrested were misdemeanors at the time of her arrest.' (Appellant's Brief, p. 9.)

        Any question as to whether violations of the ordinances involved were civil or criminal have been effectively waived by Saloom. Issues not argued are waived (Rule AP. 8.3(A)(7)) and they may not be raised for the first time in the reply brief. Flick v. Simpson, (1970) 145 Ind.App. 698, 255 N.E.2d 118; Michaels v. Johnson, (1967) 140 Ind.App. 389, 225 N.E.2d 581; Miller Monuments, Inc. v. Asbestos Insulating, etc., (1962) 134 Ind.App. 48, 185 N.E.2d 533; State v. Marion Circuit Court, (1958) 238 Ind. 637, 153 N.E.2d 327.

       Ergo, the Petition is denied.

       SULLIVAN, P.J., and WHITE, J., concur.


Summaries of

Saloom v. Holder

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Mar 14, 1974
158 Ind. App. 177 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974)

holding that "[t]hrough the years Indiana courts have consistently held that a constitutional question is not properly raised on appeal if the trial court was not apprised of specific constitutional provisions upon which a party relies in asserting that legislation is unconstitutional"

Summary of this case from Hochstedler v. St. Joseph County

holding that "[t]hrough the years Indiana courts have consistently held that a constitutional question is not properly raised on appeal if the trial court was not apprised of specific constitutional provisions upon which a party relies in asserting that legislation is unconstitutional."

Summary of this case from Monschein v. LaLonde

refusing to address the appellants' constitutional claim because resolution of the constitutional claim could have no effect upon her right to recover from the defendants

Summary of this case from Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. PSI Energy, Inc.
Case details for

Saloom v. Holder

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH SALOOM v. JOHN R. HOLDER AND THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: Mar 14, 1974

Citations

158 Ind. App. 177 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974)
158 Ind. App. 177
304 N.E.2d 217

Citing Cases

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. PSI Energy, Inc.

"Constitutional questions will not be decided unless absolutely necessary to a determination of the merits of…

Rhim v. State

Errors not specifically stated are waived on appeal. See, Spivey v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 257, 274 N.E.2d…