Ohio Court of Appeals, 1988

Contel Credit Corp. v. Rosenblatt

Contel Credit Corp. v. Rosenblatt
Ohio Court of Appeals · Decided May 16, 1988 · Markus, Nahra, McMana-mon
539 N.E.2d 708; 43 Ohio App. 3d 113; 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 1684 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Contel Credit Corp. v. Rosenblatt

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.