From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex Rel. Parlow v. Baker

Supreme Court of Indiana
Jun 29, 1950
228 Ind. 495 (Ind. 1950)

Opinion

No. O-102.

Filed June 29, 1950.

1. MANDAMUS — Jurisdiction, Proceedings and Relief — Petition — Form, Requisites and Sufficiency — Failure To Set Forth All Pleadings, Orders and Entries of Trial Court as Required by Court Rules — Petition Defective. — In an original mandamus action in the Supreme Court to compel respondent judge to act on relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, where relator has failed to set out in his petition, or have as exhibits thereto, certified copies of all pleadings, orders and entries pertaining to the subject matter as required by Supreme Court rule, his petition would be denied. Rules of the Supreme Court, 2-35. p. 496.

2. MANDAMUS — Jurisdiction, Proceedings and Relief — Petition — Form, Requisites and Sufficiency — Failure To Allege Service of Notice on Attorney General — No Action Commenced — Mandamus Will Not Lie. — In an original mandamus action in the Supreme Court to compel respondent judge to act on relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, where relator has failed to allege that the Attorney General was ever served with notice of relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus as required by statute, relator has not shown that any action was commenced in the trial court and relief by mandamus would be denied. Burns' 1933 (1949 Supp.), § 49-1937. p. 496.

Original action by the State of Indiana on the relation of Arthur J. Parlow against Robert S. Baker, as Judge of the LaPorte Superior Court, for an alternative writ of mandamus to compel respondent to act on relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Petition denied.

Jasper, J., not participating.

Arthur J. Parlow, pro se, for relator.


The verified petition for alternative writ of mandate alleges relator, on May 5, 1950, filed his verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the LaPorte Superior Court, and that said court has refused to act upon his petition and set a date for hearing thereon. The petition here has attached as an exhibit an uncertified copy of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The issuance of the alternative writ from this court must be denied for two reasons: (1) The petition fails to set out, or have as exhibits thereto, "certified copies of all 1, 2. pleadings, orders and entries pertaining to the subject matter" as appear of record in the trial court. (2) The petition does not allege that the Attorney General was ever served with notice of the petition in the trial court as required by § 49-1937, Burns' 1933 (1949 Supp.), and until such notice is served upon the Attorney General he has no cause of action commenced in the trial court. State ex rel. Sanders v. Reeves, Judge (1950), 228 Ind. 293, 91 N.E.2d 912.

There is no reason why prisoners, asserting they are unlawfully imprisoned, should not avail themselves of the services of the Public Defender, and so avoid needlessly consuming the time of this court with matters which are premature, without merit, or fatally defective from the standpoint of procedure.

The petition is denied.

Jasper, J. not participating.

NOTE. — Reported in 93 N.E.2d 199.


Summaries of

State ex Rel. Parlow v. Baker

Supreme Court of Indiana
Jun 29, 1950
228 Ind. 495 (Ind. 1950)
Case details for

State ex Rel. Parlow v. Baker

Case Details

Full title:STATE EX REL. PARLOW v. BAKER, JUDGE

Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Date published: Jun 29, 1950

Citations

228 Ind. 495 (Ind. 1950)
93 N.E.2d 199

Citing Cases

White v. Washington C.S

Petitioner has not complied with this rule, and this court has invariably held that a failure to do so makes…

Warmouth v. Owen

Therefore, each petition is insufficient. State ex rel. Spires v. Bottorff, Judge (1949), 227 Ind. 229, 84…