Contel Credit Corp. v. Rosenblatt
539 N.E.2d 708, 43 Ohio App. 3d 113, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 1684
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
Contel Credit Corp. v. Rosenblatt, 539 N.E.2d 708, 43 Ohio App. 3d 113, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 1684 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).
539 N.E.2d 708 (Contel Credit Corp. v. Rosenblatt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State Auto Mut. v. Bd. of Trustees F.O.E., Unpublished Decision (2-4-2003)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2003
Templeton v. Sheets, Unpublished Decision (9-21-2001)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2001
Cooke v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital, Unpublished Decision (5-4-1998)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 1998
State v. Zupanic, Unpublished Decision (4-1-1998)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 1998
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)