Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals v. Weisfeld

Indiana Court of Appeals

Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals v. Weisfeld

189 N.E.2d 109, 134 Ind. App. 428, 1963 Ind. App. LEXIS 177

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 4, 1963

DocketNo. 19,675

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 189 N.E.2d 109 (Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals v. Weisfeld) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals v. Weisfeld, 189 N.E.2d 109, 134 Ind. App. 428, 1963 Ind. App. LEXIS 177 (Ind. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Ryan, J.

This was an action for a certiorari to review a decision of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals of Marion County, Indiana.

The Appellees have failed to file a brief in support of the court’s judgment. The general rule is that where no brief has been filed by the appellee the judgment may be reversed if the appellant’s brief presents a prima facie case of error. This rule was established for the protection of the court so that we might be relieved of the burden of controverting the arguments and contentions advanced for a reversal [429]*429where such burden properly rests upon the appellee. Sunn v. Martin (1959), 130 Ind. App. 29, 161 N. E. 2d 487.

Upon examination of the appellants’ brief, it does in our opinion make a prima facie showing of reversible error.

The judgment is therefore reversed.

Cooper, C. J., and Carson and Clements, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported in 189 N. E. 2d 109.

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

Ryan, J.

This was an action for a certiorari to review a decision of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals of Marion County, Indiana.

The Appellees have failed to file a brief in support of the court’s judgment. The general rule is that where no brief has been filed by the appellee the judgment may be reversed if the appellant’s brief presents a prima facie case of error. This rule was established for the protection of the court so that we might be relieved of the burden of controverting the arguments and contentions advanced for a reversal [429]*429where such burden properly rests upon the appellee. Sunn v. Martin (1959), 130 Ind. App. 29, 161 N. E. 2d 487.

Upon examination of the appellants’ brief, it does in our opinion make a prima facie showing of reversible error.

The judgment is therefore reversed.

Cooper, C. J., and Carson and Clements, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported in 189 N. E. 2d 109.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 N.E.2d 109, 134 Ind. App. 428, 1963 Ind. App. LEXIS 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-board-of-zoning-appeals-v-weisfeld-indctapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack