Steves Bros. Construction Co. v. Lipinski

363 P.2d 584, 89 Ariz. 401, 1961 Ariz. LEXIS 249
CourtArizona Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 10, 1961
DocketNo. 6781
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 363 P.2d 584 (Steves Bros. Construction Co. v. Lipinski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Steves Bros. Construction Co. v. Lipinski, 363 P.2d 584, 89 Ariz. 401, 1961 Ariz. LEXIS 249 (Ark. 1961).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was commenced in the Superior Court of Coconino County by appellees as the owners of certain lots in Pine Park Manor for damages for collecting rain waters and discharging them upon appellees’ land. The trial was had before a jury which returned a verdict in favor of appellant and against the appellees. Thereafter, the court below entered an order granting appellees’ motion for a new trial without specifying with particularity the ground or grounds as required by Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 59(m), 16 A.R.S. From the order granting a new trial this appeal has been perfected.

It has been the practice of this Court that where the ground or grounds for granting a new trial have not been specified to order the record returned to the court below for compliance therewith. However, in the instant case appellees have failed to enter their appearance in this Court and have not filed an answering brief in response to appellant’s brief. Under such circumstances this Court is committed to rule that we will assume the failure to file an answering brief is a confession of reversible error. State v. Sanders, 85 Ariz. 217, 335 P.2d 616; Stover v. Kesmar, 84 Ariz. 387, 329 P.2d 1107; Dowding v. Smithers, 82 Ariz. 261, 311 P.2d 967; Schreyer v. Schreyer, 82 Ariz. 333, 313 P.2d 402; Farrell v. Cooper, 80 Ariz. 278, 296 P.2d 953; Mower v. Street, 79 Ariz. 282, 288 P.2d 495.

The order of the court below granting appellees’ motion for a new trial is reversed with directions that judgment be entered on the jury’s verdict in favor of appellant and against the appellees.

Reversed with directions.

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

Related

Montalvo v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company
427 P.2d 553 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
363 P.2d 584, 89 Ariz. 401, 1961 Ariz. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steves-bros-construction-co-v-lipinski-ariz-1961.