Lacy v. Holiday Management Company

513 P.2d 394, 85 N.M. 460
New Mexico Supreme Court·Decided July 13, 1973·No. 9655·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

OPINION

STEPHENSON, Justice.

Plaintiff-Appellant sued, alleging breach of fiducial obligations owed him as a result of a partnership of which he had been a member.

The trial court’s decision included findings of fact consistent with honesty and fair dealing on the part of the defendants-appellees and inconsistent with appellant’s factual predicate. It also denied findings of fact requested by appellant which were essential to his case.

In attempting to attack these actions of the trial court, appellant’s brief falls far short of compliance with the second paragraph of Supreme Court Rule 15(6) [§ 21-2-1(15) (6), N.M.S.A.1953]. Compliance with portions of Supreme Court Rule 15 (16) (b) and (c) [§ 21-2-1 (15) (16) (b & c), N.M.S.A.1953] ranges from slight to none.

We will accordingly consider the matter no further. The judgment from which the appeal is taken is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

McMANUS, C. J., and MONTOYA, J., concur.

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

Lacy v. Holiday Management Company, 513 P.2d 394, 85 N.M. 460 (N.M. 1973).

513 P.2d 394 (Lacy v. Holiday Management Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Olguin v. Manning
727 P.2d 556 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1986)
Matter of Doe
636 P.2d 888 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1981)
City of Farmington v. Sandoval
561 P.2d 945 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1977)