From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dougherty v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District
Jul 28, 1983
462 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983)

Opinion

No. 4-1282 A 362.

July 28, 1983.

Petition from the Marion Superior Court, Thomas E. Alsip, J.

J.J. Paul, III, James H. Voyles, Jr., Ober, Symmes, Cardwell, Voyles Zahn, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., John D. Shuman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.


OPINION ON REHEARING


James T. Dougherty (Dougherty) petitions for rehearing, claiming our opinion on his appeal is erroneous. Dougherty v. State, (1983) Ind. App. 451 N.E.2d 382. However, his petition is insufficient. Like that filed in Mikesell v. Mikesell, (1982) Ind. App., 436 N.E.2d 95, it

. . . contains no separate assignment of appellate error, rather it discusses in argumentative narrative the reasons they believe our prior decision is erroneous.

By failing to set out separately a concise assignment of appellate error, the appellants/petitioners have failed to comply with the requirements of Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 11(A).

Id. at 96. Failure to comply with this rule warrants dismissal. Therefore, Dougherty's petition for rehearing is dismissed.

MILLER and YOUNG, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Dougherty v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District
Jul 28, 1983
462 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983)
Case details for

Dougherty v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES T. DOUGHERTY, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT BELOW), v. STATE OF INDIANA…

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District

Date published: Jul 28, 1983

Citations

462 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983)