Contel Credit Corp. v. Rosenblatt

539 N.E.2d 708, 43 Ohio App. 3d 113, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 1684
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 16, 1988
Docket53813
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 539 N.E.2d 708 (Contel Credit Corp. v. Rosenblatt) 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.

Bluebook
Contel Credit Corp. v. Rosenblatt, 539 N.E.2d 708, 43 Ohio App. 3d 113, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 1684 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

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.

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

Related

Taylor v. Franklin Boulevard Nursing Home, Inc.
677 N.E.2d 1212 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1996)
Atram v. Star Tool & Die Corp.
581 N.E.2d 1110 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1989)
Rees v. Heimberger
573 N.E.2d 189 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
539 N.E.2d 708, 43 Ohio App. 3d 113, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 1684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/contel-credit-corp-v-rosenblatt-ohioctapp-1988.