Bouldin v. Sheerer

187 P. 568, 21 Ariz. 247, 1920 Ariz. LEXIS 99
Arizona Supreme Court·Decided February 25, 1920·No. Civil No. 1756·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

No assignments of error have been filed by appellant or appear in the briefs filed. We have decided in a long line of cases that, in the absence of any assignment of error, and none appearing upon the face of the record, the appeal may be either dismissed or the judgment affirmed. Maricopa County v. Jordan, 7 Ariz. 4, 60 Pac. 693; Gardner v. Gardner, 7 Ariz. 73, 60 Pac. 875; Trimble et al. v. Long, 6 Ariz. 268, 56 Pac. 731; Daggs et al. v. Field, 6 Ariz. 47, 52 Pac. 773; Daggs et al. v. Hoskins et al., 5 Ariz. 236, 52 Pac. 350; Putnam v. Putnam, 3 Ariz. 182, 24 Pac. 320.; Wolfley v. Gila River Irr. Co., 3 Ariz. 176, 24 Pac. 257.

[248] The members of the bar of the state must take notice that this salutary rule will hereafter be strictly enforced. '

The appeal in this case is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bouldin v. Sheerer, 187 P. 568, 21 Ariz. 247, 1920 Ariz. LEXIS 99 (Ark. 1920).

187 P. 568 (Bouldin v. Sheerer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Butler v. Va Sant
365 P.2d 210 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1961)
Hansen v. Hansen
224 P. 826 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1924)
City of Phoenix v. Jones
189 P. 242 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1920)