Bethke v. Kaplan, 89829 (4-17-2008)
This text of 2008 Ohio 1832 (Bethke v. Kaplan, 89829 (4-17-2008)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
{¶ 2} Pursuant to App.R. 16(A)(7), an appellant must include in its brief "an argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies."
{¶ 3} An appellate court may overrule or disregard an assignment of error presented for review due to a "lack of briefing" on that assignment of error. See State v. Watson (1998),
{¶ 4} Here, Bethke cited no case or statutory law in support of his three assignments of error. Accordingly, we overrule his three assignments of error. See App.R. 12(A)(2) and 16(A)(7); Id. *Page 4
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellees recover from appellant their costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
*Page 1PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., and FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2008 Ohio 1832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bethke-v-kaplan-89829-4-17-2008-ohioctapp-2008.