Knapp v. Fleming

258 P.2d 489, 127 Colo. 414, 1953 Colo. LEXIS 404
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedApril 27, 1953
Docket16861
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 258 P.2d 489 (Knapp v. Fleming) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Knapp v. Fleming, 258 P.2d 489, 127 Colo. 414, 1953 Colo. LEXIS 404 (Colo. 1953).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Alter

delivered the opinion of the court.

G*. J. Knapp, plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff in the trial court, brought an action against Herman L. Fleming and Frank Kirtley to recover judgment against defendants in the sum of $250.00, with interest thereon. Upon trial to the court, and at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence, on motion of defendants, judgment of dismissal was entered, to reverse which plaintiff brings the case here by writ of error.

It appears from the record that plaintiff is acting here; and acted in the court below, as his own attorney. *415 The trial court repeatedly took this fact into consideration and permitted him to proceed with the presentation of his case in an unorthodox manner. A litigant is permitted to present his own case, but, in so doing, should be restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as is required of those qualified to practice law before our courts; otherwise, ignorance is unjustly rewarded.

Plaintiff’s brief is scurrilous, containing frequent invectives and vituperations, together with derogatory remarks concerning the trial judge and questioning the latter’s ability and integrity. It should be stricken. However, from the record and brief we observe that plaintiff has failed to comply with rule 27, R.C.P. Colo., concerning depositions; rule 59 (f), R.C.P. Colo., respecting the necessity for motions for new trials; and rule 115 (c) (3) R.C.P. Colo., providing for a concise statement of the case.

Plaintiff having failed to comply with our rules as above stated, the writ of error is dismissed.

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

Related

Adams v. Sagee
2017 COA 133 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2017)
People v. Wunder
2016 COA 46 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2016)
Martin v. Essrig
277 P.3d 857 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2011)
Manka v. Martin
614 P.2d 875 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1980)
Westberry v. State
254 A.2d 44 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1969)
Suchta v. O. K. Rubber Welders, Inc.
386 P.2d 931 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1963)
Kopff v. Judd
304 P.2d 623 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1956)
Doran v. Dreyer
299 P.2d 661 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)
People v. Morgan
296 P.2d 75 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)
Lombardi v. Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank of Los Angeles
289 P.2d 823 (California Court of Appeal, 1955)
Monastero v. Los Angeles Transit Co.
280 P.2d 187 (California Court of Appeal, 1955)
Viles v. Scofield
261 P.2d 148 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
258 P.2d 489, 127 Colo. 414, 1953 Colo. LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knapp-v-fleming-colo-1953.