Contel Credit Corp. v. Rosenblatt
Contel Credit Corporation, Appellee, v. Rosenblatt, D.B.A. Orwell Coach Lines, Appellant
Opinion of the Court
Markus, J.
Defendant presents ten assigned errors. However, his brief contains nothing more than a list of the proposed errors. He has failed to comply with App. R. 12(A), which requires an appellant to brief and argue each assigned error separately. Therefore, we summarily reject the defendant’s appeal. Further, pursuant to App. R. 23, we direct that appellant shall pay appellee $100 toward appellee’s attorney fees in defending a frivolous appeal.
Judgment accordingly.
Nahra, C.J., and Ann McMana-MON, J., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- State Auto Mut. v. Bd. of Trustees F.O.E., Unpublished Decision (2-4-2003)
- Templeton v. Sheets, Unpublished Decision (9-21-2001)
- Cooke v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital, Unpublished Decision (5-4-1998)
- State v. Zupanic, Unpublished Decision (4-1-1998)
- Taylor v. Franklin Boulevard Nursing Home, Inc.
- Atram v. Star Tool & Die Corp.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.