Cramer v. Kelso

Indiana Court of Appeals

Cramer v. Kelso

103 N.E.2d 901, 122 Ind. App. 246, 1952 Ind. App. LEXIS 134

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 28, 1952

DocketNo. 18,272

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 103 N.E.2d 901 (Cramer v. Kelso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cramer v. Kelso, 103 N.E.2d 901, 122 Ind. App. 246, 1952 Ind. App. LEXIS 134 (Ind. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Wiltrout, P. J.

There has been an almost complete failure in this cause to comply with Rule 2-17 in the preparation of appellants’ brief. It would serve no useful purpose to catalogue all the omissions. Although appellee has pointed out numerous omissions there has been no request for authority to amend appellants’ brief.

The error assigned for reversal is alleged error in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial, the grounds of which are that the decision of the court is contrary to law and that the decision is not sustained by [247]*247sufficient evidence. Appellants’ brief does not show that the motion was overruled or what, if any, judgment the court below entered. We have found it necessary to examine the transcript to ascertain that there was a final judgment. No pleadings are set forth either verbatim or in substance. There is no condensed recital of so much of the evidence in narrative form as is necessary to present a full understanding of the questions attempted to be presented.

No question being presented, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 103 N. E. 2d 901.

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

Wiltrout, P. J.

There has been an almost complete failure in this cause to comply with Rule 2-17 in the preparation of appellants’ brief. It would serve no useful purpose to catalogue all the omissions. Although appellee has pointed out numerous omissions there has been no request for authority to amend appellants’ brief.

The error assigned for reversal is alleged error in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial, the grounds of which are that the decision of the court is contrary to law and that the decision is not sustained by [247]*247sufficient evidence. Appellants’ brief does not show that the motion was overruled or what, if any, judgment the court below entered. We have found it necessary to examine the transcript to ascertain that there was a final judgment. No pleadings are set forth either verbatim or in substance. There is no condensed recital of so much of the evidence in narrative form as is necessary to present a full understanding of the questions attempted to be presented.

No question being presented, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 103 N. E. 2d 901.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 N.E.2d 901, 122 Ind. App. 246, 1952 Ind. App. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cramer-v-kelso-indctapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack