![Dallas Company v. William Tobias Studio](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Dallas Company v. William Tobias Studio](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Dallas Company v. William Tobias Studio
1974.IN.30429 318 N.E.2D 568; 162 IND. APP. 213
-
- $9.00
-
- $9.00
Descripción editorial
In an unpublished Memorandum Opinion handed down May 8, 1978, we decided that the trial court in this case did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal taken by Sacks from a decision by the Superintendent of State Police (DeBard) denying Sacks a license to sell hand guns at retail, and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to dismiss Sacks appeal. We did so because Sacks failed to comply with the Administrative Adjudication Act, Ind. Code 4-22-1-1 et seq., by filing a petition within fifteen days after DeBards decision as required by Section 14 of the act. .. and such a defect has been held to be jurisdictional by a long line of Indiana cases. Indiana State Personnel Board v. Parkman (1969), 252 Ind. 44, 245 N.E.2d 153; Gleason v. Real Estate Commission (1973), 157 Ind. App. 344, 300 N.E.2d 116.