Wydick v. Thomas

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Wydick v. Thomas

410 S.W.2d 405

DecidedNovember 11, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 410 S.W.2d 405 (Wydick v. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wydick v. Thomas, 410 S.W.2d 405 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

MONTGOMERY, Judge.

Remus Thomas recovered judgment of $3,000, compensatory damages, and $2,000, punitive damages, against Cecil Wydick for the alienation of the affections of his wife, Katherine. Wydick appeals and urges that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict on the issues of liability and damages ; that the question of punitive damages should not have been submitted to the jury; and that appellee’s counsel was guilty of misconduct on the trial.

Appellee has failed to file a brief. For such failure, under RCA 1.260(c), the court may “(2) reverse the judgment if appellant’s, brief reasonably appears to sustain such action; or (3) regard the appellee’s failure as a confession of error and reverse the judgment without considering the merits-of the case.” Such failure authorizes a reversal. Commonwealth by and ex rel. Marcum v. Fitzgerald, Ky., 376 S.W.2d 518; Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Johnson, Ky., 377 S.W.2d 596.

The brief filed by appellant reasonably appears to sustain a reversal of the judgment and the failure of appellee to file a brief is regarded as a “confession of error.”-

The judgment is reversed, with direction to enter a judgment in favor of the appellant.

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

MONTGOMERY, Judge.

Remus Thomas recovered judgment of $3,000, compensatory damages, and $2,000, punitive damages, against Cecil Wydick for the alienation of the affections of his wife, Katherine. Wydick appeals and urges that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict on the issues of liability and damages ; that the question of punitive damages should not have been submitted to the jury; and that appellee’s counsel was guilty of misconduct on the trial.

Appellee has failed to file a brief. For such failure, under RCA 1.260(c), the court may “(2) reverse the judgment if appellant’s, brief reasonably appears to sustain such action; or (3) regard the appellee’s failure as a confession of error and reverse the judgment without considering the merits-of the case.” Such failure authorizes a reversal. Commonwealth by and ex rel. Marcum v. Fitzgerald, Ky., 376 S.W.2d 518; Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Johnson, Ky., 377 S.W.2d 596.

The brief filed by appellant reasonably appears to sustain a reversal of the judgment and the failure of appellee to file a brief is regarded as a “confession of error.”-

The judgment is reversed, with direction to enter a judgment in favor of the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

410 S.W.2d 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wydick-v-thomas-kyctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack