Green v. Sumby

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Green v. Sumby

93 A. 868, 248 Pa. 120, 1915 Pa. LEXIS 523

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 8, 1915·No. Appeal, No. 244·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam,

If there were any merit in this appeal, the appellant would suffer for counsel’s gross violation of rule 34, relating to the statement of the question or questions involved. The violation of the rule in the present case consists in devoting thirty lines, covering a whole page, to what could have been intelligently stated in less than the prescribed limit. The appeal must be quashed: Duffee v. Bankers’ Surety Company, 247 Pa. 17.

Appeal quashed.

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

Per Curiam,

If there were any merit in this appeal, the appellant would suffer for counsel’s gross violation of rule 34, relating to the statement of the question or questions involved. The violation of the rule in the present case consists in devoting thirty lines, covering a whole page, to what could have been intelligently stated in less than the prescribed limit. The appeal must be quashed: Duffee v. Bankers’ Surety Company, 247 Pa. 17.

Appeal quashed.

Green v. Sumby, 93 A. 868, 248 Pa. 120, 1915 Pa. LEXIS 523 (Pa. 1915).

Pincite

93 A. 868 (Green v. Sumby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related