Contel Credit Corp. v. Rosenblatt

Ohio Court of Appeals May 16, 1988

Contel Credit Corp. v. Rosenblatt, 539 N.E.2d 708 (1988)

43 Ohio App. 3d 113; 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 1684

Markus, Nahra, McMana-mon

Opinion of the Court

Markus, J.

Defendant presents ten assigned errors. However, his brief contains nothing more than a list of the proposed errors. He has failed to comply with App. R. 12(A), which requires an appellant to brief and argue each assigned error separately. Therefore, we summarily reject the defendant’s appeal. Further, pursuant to App. R. 23, we direct that appellant shall pay appellee $100 toward appellee’s attorney fees in defending a frivolous appeal.

Judgment accordingly.

Nahra, C.J., and Ann McMana-MON, J., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name: Contel Credit Corporation, Appellee, v. Rosenblatt, D.B.A. Orwell Coach Lines, Appellant
Cited By: 7 cases
Status: Published