Dawson v. Mitchell

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Dawson v. Mitchell

576 So. 2d 672, 1991 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 63, 1991 WL 15014

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 6, 1991

DocketCiv. 2900026

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 576 So. 2d 672 (Dawson v. Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dawson v. Mitchell, 576 So. 2d 672, 1991 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 63, 1991 WL 15014 (Ala. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

THIGPEN, Judge.

Melvin Dawson filed a complaint in small claims court alleging that he had lent Shelia Mitchell, his former wife, a sum of money which she refused to repay. Mitchell responded by stating that the money was given to her by Dawson while they were married and that the subsequent divorce controlled the issue of whether the money was given to her. Judgment was entered in favor of Mitchell, and Dawson appealed to the circuit court. Dawson’s request that the trial judge recuse himself was denied. Subsequently, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Mitchell. Dawson, pro se, appeals.

It appears that Dawson’s issue concerns whether the trial judge should have re-cused himself. However, Dawson's brief fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 28, Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. He fails to provide any statement of the case or the pertinent facts, he fails to articulate any issues on appeal, and although he presented some caselaw, that authority is not supportive.

Dawson’s failure to comply with the rules places him in a perilous position. We are allowed to dismiss Dawson’s appeal under Rule 2, A.R.App.P. Alternatively, [673]*673we may affirm the judgment of the trial court. Cummins v. Slayton, 545 So.2d 783 (Ala.Civ.App.1989). Dawson’s brief totally fails to comply with Rule 28, A.R. App.P. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and RUSSELL, J., concur.

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

THIGPEN, Judge.

Melvin Dawson filed a complaint in small claims court alleging that he had lent Shelia Mitchell, his former wife, a sum of money which she refused to repay. Mitchell responded by stating that the money was given to her by Dawson while they were married and that the subsequent divorce controlled the issue of whether the money was given to her. Judgment was entered in favor of Mitchell, and Dawson appealed to the circuit court. Dawson’s request that the trial judge recuse himself was denied. Subsequently, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Mitchell. Dawson, pro se, appeals.

It appears that Dawson’s issue concerns whether the trial judge should have re-cused himself. However, Dawson's brief fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 28, Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. He fails to provide any statement of the case or the pertinent facts, he fails to articulate any issues on appeal, and although he presented some caselaw, that authority is not supportive.

Dawson’s failure to comply with the rules places him in a perilous position. We are allowed to dismiss Dawson’s appeal under Rule 2, A.R.App.P. Alternatively, [673]*673we may affirm the judgment of the trial court. Cummins v. Slayton, 545 So.2d 783 (Ala.Civ.App.1989). Dawson’s brief totally fails to comply with Rule 28, A.R. App.P. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and RUSSELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 So. 2d 672, 1991 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 63, 1991 WL 15014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawson-v-mitchell-alacivapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack