Contel Credit Corp. v. Rosenblatt
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.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.