Heneghan v. Cahill

25 Colo. App. 311
CourtColorado Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 15, 1913
DocketNo. 3783
StatusPublished

This text of 25 Colo. App. 311 (Heneghan v. Cahill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Colorado Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Heneghan v. Cahill, 25 Colo. App. 311 (Colo. Ct. App. 1913).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In their brief, counsel for appellant frankly admit (and their admission is entirely justified by the record) that substantially their whole contention in this case is that the findings and judgment of the trial court are so against the weight of the evidence as to indicate passion, misapprehension, or some other improper consideration, on the part of the trial court, and that for this reason the judgment in this case should be reversed.

The case was tried to the court without a jury. We have carefully examined the entire record, and given the briefs filed by appellant due consideration. From our examination of the record, we are not able to agree with appellant’s contention that the findings and judgment of the trial court are against the weight of the evidence. There are no principles of law involved requiring a written opinion at our hands. An elaborate discussion of the evidence would, therefore, necessarily take the form of an argument based solely upon facts, and such argument would be of no advantage to the profession, or to the parties to this action.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Judgment Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Colo. App. 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heneghan-v-cahill-coloctapp-1913.