Laws

In this state the law Post Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 7:25:58 +0000
It is the duty of the court to keep the rec- ords clean and free from scanda L Green v Elbert, 137 U S 615 Portion only Stricken out. In Cas- sidy v Palo Alto County, 58 Iowa 125, a portion of the appellee's brief was stricken out on account of its unpro- voked scurrility and abuse, and no costs allowed therefoRLanguage Censure d The following language in a brief was severely cen- sured, though the brief was not stricken out therefor: "In the first place, it is proper to state that S [the plaintiff] and S are the sharpest clothing dealers among the Jewish merchants of Ottumwa, Iowa" The court, however, said it would prob- ably be justified in striking out the brief Sax v Drake, 69 Iowa 760 2 In Illinois, ten day S Scroggin v Brown, 14 111 App 338 And see preceding notes under this sectio N 3 Littlejohn z/ Miller, 5 Wash 399 4 See Beatty v McNaughton, i Barb C H ( N Y) 319, in note 6, infr A But a brief in the court below is generally used merely as a memo- randum for the counse L Anderson Law Diet 5 Thus in Missour I Johnson County v Bryson, 26 Mo App 484 Dispensing -with Briefs by Agree- ment. In this state the law absolutely requires a statement and brief, and they cannot be dispensed with even by agreement.

Autor of the post: Undefined

It was frequently important Post Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 7:06:42 +0000
Snyder v Hopkins, 39 Mo 418; Parkville v Clough, 39 Mo 520; Disse v Frank, 52 Mo 551; Mister v Corrigan, 17 Mo App 510; Wood- ward v Hodge, 24 Mo App 677 In Illinois a party appealing from a judgment of the appellate court may file in the cause in the Supreme Court the briefs used in the appellate court without asking special leav e Devine v Edwards, 100 111 473 6 Indiana " The law does not re- quire parties to either brief or argue orally causes in this court. We have attempted to supply the omission by adopting a rule dismissing the appeal where no brief is filed as therein require d" Trayser z/ Indiana Asbury University, 39 Ind 556 In California the transcript and the briefs or points and authorities of Time Allowed Appellant and Appelle e It is usual to allow the appellant a certain time within which to file his brief, and the appellee the remaining time before the hearing of the case to file his; but in a few states the appellee is allowed only a definite time, and the ap- pellant given an opportunity to file a reply brief* both parties must be filed before the Supreme Court will permit a cause to be placed upon the calendar on the stipulation of the partie S Plant z Smyth e 43Cal42 In New York it was the duty of each party on the argument of a cause before a vice-chancellor to furnish his opponent with a copy of his points, and that a copy should also be handed to the court. It was frequently important that the appellate court should know what points were made in the court below, and that a copy of the points insisted upon by each party before the vice-chancellor should be furnished to the chancellor upon the appea L Beatty v McNaughton, i Barb C H ( N Y) 319 Briefs and Oral Arguments Washing- to N A rule of the Supreme Court of Washington reads: "In all cases to be argued, each party must furnish to the court and opposite party printed briefs of his points and authoritie S" In commenting on this rule the court said: "That is, if a case 'is to be argued ' by both parties or by either party, ' each party ' must fur- nish a brief Now, the words 'to be argued ' cannot mean actual argumen- tation, for whether the case would even get to actual argument could not be foreseen at the time for filing brief S Nor can they refer to the indi- vidual intention or expectation of either party, for neither would have the right to close the lips of the other; and if either is to speak the court has a right to hear, and ought to have opportunity to know what can be said for the otheRThe words ' to be argued' are equivalent to the words 'to be heard' I e, submitted for determinatio N" Oregon R, etc, Co v O'Brien, 3 Wash Ter 21 In Illinois printed briefs must be filed, whether the case be submitted for decision with or without oral argu- ment.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Guerin v St Paul, etc Post Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 6:46:51 +0000
Anonymous, 40 111 57 And where the plaintiff in error has, on the regular call of the docket, argued the case orally, the defendant, having failed to do so, may nevertheless, as of course, file a written argument. Bentley v Lill, 40 111 58 1 Interchange of Brief S In Indiana a rule of court requires an interchange of briefs; but only on requeSt And neglect to request such interchange would not impose on the appellee the necessity of answering errors not as- signed, nor on the court to decide the M Hollingsworth v State, 8 Ind Presumption of Servic e Where a printed argument is submitted to the court above at the usual time and in the usual manner, the court will not hold that the argument was irregu- larly submitted, upon the mere state- ment of the opposing counsel, in a peti- tion for rehearing, that he had not seen the argument until after the opinion was file d Hall v Harris, 61 Iowa 500 Failure to Serv e In Minnesota, by rule of court, when, without sufficient excuse, the appellant has failed to deliver to the adverse party a copy of the paper-book, and of his points and authorities, twenty days before the first term of court commencing more than eighty days after the appeal is perfected, a proper case is made for the respondent to move for an affirm- ance of the judgment. Guerin v St Paul, etc, RCo, 32 Min N 409 In Illinois the counsel for the appel- lant is required to file ane copy of the printed brief to be used in Che argu- ment of the case, for the use of the opposite counsel, at least one day previous to the argument.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Devore v Adams, 68 Iowa Post Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 6:31:24 +0000
Gibbs v Blackwell, 40 111 51 Failure to Serve in Ti Me See Doo- little v Doolittl e 78 Iowa 691 See also Iv3 2 Reply Brief In Colorado orders may be entered allowing appellant to file a reply brief in this wa Y Owen v Going, 13 Colo290; Denver, etc, RCo v Woy, 7 Colo556 Order of Filin g In appeals in equity 2 Effect of Failure to Fil e The failure of a party to file a brief is a substantial and not merely technical disregard of the rules of court. 2 cases it is the right of the plaintiff to open and close the argument, even though the defendant appeal S Thus, where the defendant appealed and filed the first argument, the court re- fused to strike out an argument by the appellee in reply, although it might have been different had the appellant been compelled to file the first argu- ment in srder that a submission might be ha d Tantlinger v Sullivan, 80 Iowa 218 Party Having Burden of Proof In an equity case triable de novo on appeal, the party having the burden of proof is entitled to file the opening and clos- ing argument though the other party is the appellant. Devore v Adams, 68 Iowa 385; Steel v Fife, 48 Iowa 99; Alexander v McGrew, 57 Iowa 287 The right of the appellee in such a case to open may doubtless be waived, but if the appellant files no brief the decree will be affirme d Scott v Nei- ses, 61 Iowa 62 Loss of Bight to File Opening Argu- ment.

Autor of the post: Undefined

The filing of a brief Post Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 6:14:21 +0000
Where the appellant failed to file' an assignment of errors within the time prescribed, and the appellee filed the opening argument, the court re- fused to strike it out upon motion of the appellant, who had subsequently filed his assignment of errors, on the ground that he was entitled to the opening argument. Ingersoll v Hay- ward (Iowa, 1894), 60 N W Rep 512 1 Waiver of Formal Objectionsby Filin g "A party who files a brief waives all questions as to notice which affect him, and he waives questions as to the formality or regularity of the as- signment of error S But * * * he does not, by filing a brief, waive the right to challenge the specifications of error, as, for instance, the right to insist that a cause for a new trial not assigned in the motion below is not available on appea L" Elliott App Pro, 448 He cannot subsequently enter a special appearance and make objections on the ground of notic e Schmidt v Wright, 88 Ind 56 Notice of Cross-error S Filing a brief will be a waiver of the want of suffi- cient notice of an application to file cross-error S See Peterson v West- ern Union Te L Co (Ind App, 1894), 36 N E Rep 926 Service of Assignment. The filing of a brief by the appellee, more than a year and a half before a motion by him to affirm the judgment, in answer to errors assigned, was held, in the absence of proof of prejudice to him, to be a waiver of the failure to serve upon him the assignment of error S Smith v Wingard, 3 Wash Ter 37 A Eule of the Supreme Court requires that notice to the counsel on the oppo- site side of a motion to dismiss must be accompanied by a copy of the brief or argument to be used in its support.

Autor of the post: Undefined

State v California Mi N Post Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 6:02:15 +0000
Where this was omitted the court said that, while it might have been good cause for postponing the hearing to give the counsel on the other side time for further preparation, yet, as a full argument upon the merits of the mo- tion had been filed by him, they would treat it as a waiver of the notice re- quired by the rul e Thomas v Wool- ridge, 23 Wal L (U S) 283 Same as Oral Argument. An agree- ment to waive argument before the court, and taking time to file briefs on the merits of the case, is the same in effect as an oral argument. State v California Mi N Co, 13 Nev 203 Appearance by Brief onl Y Where an objection, the grounds of which are discovered after the trial, is not made in the court below, and the assignment of errors is too general to bring it to the notice of the defendant in error, who appears by brief only, thus being afforded no opportunity to explain or obviate it, the court will not reverse the judgment for such objection unless the justice of the case seems mani- festly to require it.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Missour I If the appellant Post Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 5:43:09 +0000
Hicks v Bailey, 16 Tex 229 Formal Presentation of Caus e " The briefs are, in fact, the formal presen- tation of the cause, and when all are on file in a particular case, such case is fully made up, and cannot thereafter be added to without the consent of all parties and the court." Francioli v Brue, 4 Wash 124 2 Oregon R, etc, Co v O'Brien, 3 Wash Ter 21 Dismissal or Affirmanc e When the appellant fails to file his brief, the court will ordinarily dismiss the appeal ; * or, what is substan- points nor an argument is filed by ap- pellants, the court will assume that they have abandoned their appea L Raynor v Raynor, 77 Iowa 282 KentucKy When no brief is filed by the appellant, it ought to be taken as a confession that no error exists, Morse -v Lucas (Ky ,1893), 22 S W Rep 216; and the appellee may have the appeal dismissed on motio N Spires v Langford (Ky, 1894), 25 S W Rep 597-. Missour I If the appellant fails to file a statement and points as required by the statute, the appeal will be dis- misse d State v Davidson, 73 Mo 428; Dean v Ewing, 33 Mo 172; James v Bishop, 58 Mo 555; Custer z/ Arbuthnot, 59 Mo 155; State v, Smith, 60 Mo 515; Clark v Estees, 55 Mo 253; Kite v Cox, 53 Mo 237; Eyerman v Zeppenfeld, 9 Mo App 572; Schiller v Voelker, 9 Mo App 572; Michel v St Louis Distilling Co, 10 Mo App 577; Aderton z/ Edwards, 12 Mo App 565; Shields v Duffy, 13 Mo App 574; Coffey v Dubois, 35 Mo App 96; Jungeman v Joseph Schnaider Brewing Co, 38 Mo App 458; Stanton v Slabaugh (Mo, 1889), 11 S W Rep 577 But in Riordan v Blenke, 24 Mo App 357, it was held discretionary with the court to con- tinue or reset the cause, or dismiss the appea L Montana Where no brief is filed by the appellant calling attention to any error in the judgment roll, it will be presumed there is non e Steuffenz'.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Long v Long, 96 Mo Post Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 5:31:25 +0000
Jefferis, 9 Mont 66 In Texas for failure to file a brief the appeal will ordinarily be dis- misse d See Dyer v Dement, 37 Tex 431; Murchison v Holly, 40 Tex 439 United States Supreme Court Where counsel for appellant does not appear and no brief is filed, the appeal is dis- missed under the rule of court. Fitton v Taylor, 140 U S 680; Miller v Edgerton, 140 U S 690 See Benites v Hampton, 123 U S 519 Wisconsi N If the court is not fur- nished with a printed "case" or brief, the appeal will be dismisse d Bigelow v, Goss, 5 Wi S 83; Holmes v Braman, 15 Wi S 603; Ingersoll v Micklem, 16 Wi S 90 Wyoming A failure to file and serve a brief will cause a dismissa L No brief at all is worse than one too voluminou S Brown v Tolles, 7Cal 1 California Where there is no as- signment of errors or statement of the points and authorities upon which the appellant relies, the appeal will be dismisse d People v Comedo, nCal70 Likewise where there is no state- ment on appeal, or grounds of appeal appearing in the record, nor any as- signment of errors filed, nor any brief filed in the cas e Fowler v Harbin, 23Cal630 Illinoi S Where the appellant has not complied with the rules of court by filing his printed points and fur- nishing a printed abstract or any ar- gument in the case, the court may well refuse to take any other notice of it than to dismiss it, these failures af- fording a strong presumption that the appeal was taken for delay merel Y Butterworth v Brown, 26 111 156 Continuanc e And where a case, brought upon a writ of error, with no supersedeas granted, was submitted without oral argument, and the plain- tiff in error failed to furnish a brief, the case was continued, as no delay was occasioned thereby; but had it been on appeal, or the supersedeas granted, the case would have been dismisse d Anonymous, 40 111 59 See Gibbs v Blackwell, 40 111 51 Indiana Points not made in the brief of counsel are considered waived ; and where no brief is filed no points are made; and the court has nothing to do but affirm the judgment or dismiss the appea L Parker v Hastings, 12 Ind 654 Appeal dismissed, State v Moore, ii Ind 492; Sowle v State, n Ind 491; Falkner v Mcllroy, ii Ind 510; Benfield v Reynolds, 14 Ind 388; Indianapolis, etc, RCo v Ferguson, 58 Ind 445; Indianapolis, etc, RCo v Kostanzer, 58 Ind 446; Indianapo- lis, etc, RCo v Bailey, 58 Ind 471; Schwarm v State, 81 Ind 247; Car- riger v Kennedy, 134 Ind 107 And the filing of a paper purporting to be a brief, but containing neither in form nor in substance what is neces- sary under the rules and usages of the court to constitute a brief, will not prevent a dismissa L Roy v State, 58 Ind 378 tially the same thing, affirm the judgment or decree appealed from * without looking into the merits of the cas e 2 But, though not bound to, the court, of its own motion, may examine the record, 3 and frequently does in criminal case S 4 Cronkhite v Bothwell, 3 Wyoming 736 Brief Withdrawn and not Returne d In Kiley v Perrin, 69 Ind 387, the failure of the counsel for the appellant to return his brief to the files of the court after withdrawing it operated as one of the causes for dismissing the appea L See Couse v Hanes, 44 Ind 282 1 Purdy v Rahl (Ca L, 1889), 21 Pa C Rep 971; Abraham v Chase, n Ind 513; Drexler v Seal Rock Tobac- co Co, 78Cal624; Ward v Davidson, 13 Mo App 573; Schneider v Hoff- man, 13 Mo App 573; Cogswell v Randolph, 40 Mo 603 ; Rodgers v Rod- gers, 41 Mo 493; State v Whitten, 23 Mo App 459; Tucker v Constable, 16 Oregon 239; Ryan v Koch, 17 Wal L (U S) 19; Fountain v Leckie, 3 Wash Ter 407; State v Dakin ( Mont, 1895), 39 Pac Rep 848 Where a case has been submitted on briefs to be filed, and they have not been filed when the time allowed has expired, the judgment will be af- firme d Edmondson v Alameda County, 24Cal349; Holm v Roach, 25Cal37; Hickinbotham v Monroe, 28Cal489; Markham v Fowler (Ca L, 1888), 17 Pac Rep 228; Hanson v Vail (Ca L, 1889), 21 Pac Rep 971; Dalmazzo v Drysdale (Ca L, 1889), 21 Pa C Rep 553; Niles v Chicago, etc, RCo, 13 Iowa 598; Finlayson v Montgomery, 14 Nev 397; Goodhue v Shedd, 17 Nev 140; Mathewson v Boyle, 20 Nev 88 Brief Withdrawn or LoSt Where the brief filed by the appellant was with- drawn or lost, and he was notified several times that no brief was on file, and was requested to file one, but did not do so, the appeal was dismisse d Couse v Hanes, 44 Ind 282 And in Lent v Napoleon First Nat Bank, 65 Ind 112, under like circumstances, the judgment was affirme d In Iowa, if no brief is filed by the appellant the judgment will be af- firme d Mores v Hanchatt, 54 Iowa 747; Dinning v Bement, 54 Iowa 156; Clime v Phipps, 62 Iowa 759; Lamp v Sievers, 66 Iowa 85 In an Equity Cause, there being no brief for the appellant, though one was filed for the appellee, the judg- ment was affirme d Beams v Craw- ford, 86 Iowa, 753, citing Scott v Neises, 61 Iowa 62; Devore v Adams, 68 Iowa 385 In Florida, where there is an entire failure to file any brief or argue the case the judgment will be affirme d Clarke v Southern Express Co, 33 Fla 617 2 A court will not perform the du- ties of counsel; it will not examine a record to see if it can find errors upon which to reverse a judgment, when it has not been apprised of the er- rors by a brief or other mean S Ed- mondson v Alameda County, 24Cal349; Williams v Hall, 24Cal156; Hut- ton v Reed, 25Cal488; Mokelumne Hill Canal, etc, Co v Woodbury, 10 Ca L 187; Brewster v Johnson, 51Cal222; In re Montgomery's Estate, 59 Ca L 583; Faris v Lampson, 73Cal190; Scott v Sowden (Ca L, 1888), 16 Pac Rep 768; Woodward v Ches- ter, 42 Mich 461; Busch v Fisher, 89 Mich 192 " A case that does not possess suf- ficient merit to demand the filing of briefs is of too little importance to occupy the time of the court in its consideratio N" Stabler v Gund, 35 Neb 648, folio-wed in Zimmerman Mfg Co v Tower, 40 Neb 306; Kil- patrick-Koch Dry Goods Co v Cook, 41 Neb 737; Obert v Wentz ( Neb, 1894), 60 N W Rep 353 But for prac- tice in Nebraska see infr A 3 In Utah Territory, when the ap- pellant failed to file his brief, the court might, in its discretion, affirm, dismiss, or examine the record, and render such judgment as it deemed juSt Emerick v Ogden City, 9 Utah 372 4 State v Bennett, 74 Iowa 757; State v Ullins, 74 Iowa 763; Territory v Roberts, 9 Mont 12; Territory v Stanton, 8 Mont 157 In such cases the courts of many states feel it their duty, in the interests of justice, to look into the cas e State v McGinnis, 17 Oregon 332; State v Oleson (Wash, 1894), 37 Pac Rep 419 Failure of Appellee to Fil e The appellant having duly filed his brief, the failure of the appellee to file his will entail a reversal of the judgment * or the loss of the right to be heard in oral argument, In California, where the defendant in a criminal case appeals, but files no brief, and no error in the record is apparent, the judgment will be affirme d People v Moran (Ca L, 1892), 31 Pac Rep 853 See People v Bachman (Ca L, 1890), 23 Pac Rep 1090 In Missouri, by statute, in a crim- inal case the court must examine the record and give judgment, whether any brief has been filed or not. Long v Long, 96 Mo 180; State v Dotson, 115 Mo 399; State v Heffernan, 20 Mo App 327; State v Pfaff, 20 Mo App 335- In Indiana and Nevada the rule is otherwis e State v Myatt, 10 Nev 163; Cutler v State, 62 Ind 398 And it makes no difference that the state is the appellant.

Autor of the post: Undefined

" Martin v Martin, 74 Ind Post Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 5:14:15 +0000
State v Lieben 57 Ind 106 Montana In Territory v Mooney, 8 Mont 151; Territory v Stanton, 8 Mont 157; and Territory v Roberts, 9 Mont 12, the court expressed disap- proval of the practice of not filing briefs in criminal case S And in state v Dakin ( Mont, 1895), 39 Pac Rep 848, which was an appeal by the State from the overruling of its demurrer to defendant's plea, the judgment was affirmed because no brief was filed or oral argument made by either part Y South Carolina Where an appeal in a criminal case has not been docketed, counsel may agree upon, sign, and file a brief as the return, though in- complete and imperfect, and thus give the court jurisdictio N State v Ben- nett ( S Car, 1894), 18 S E Rep 891 1 Carroll v Holmes, 19 111 App 564; Parson z Haskell, 30 111 App 444; Tascott z/ Mutual Bld g, etc, As- so C, 37 111 App 274 Unless the court, on examination of the record, should deem it proper to decide the case on its merit S Terre Haute, etc, RCo v Goodwin, 4 111 App 165 ; Asher v Mitchell, 7 111 App 127; Cox v Tuscola, 2 111 App 628 Appellee Relying on Motion to Dismiss or Affir M Where the appellee filed a printed brief in support of a motion to dismiss, which was overruled, and he did not file any brief on the merits, appellant's brief remaining wholly un- answered, the judgment was reverse d Mattoon z/ Holmes, 14 111 App 392 And where the appellee, relying on a motion to affirm, does not file a brief, he cannot object that the court, after overruling the motion, decides the case on its merits without a brief from hi M Mutual Bld g, etc, Asso C v Tascott (111, 1891), 28 N E Rep So X Effect as Admissio N In Texas, if, on suggestion of delay by the appellee in the Court of Civil Appeals, he fails to file a brief in compliance with the rules, all the statements of the appellant in his brief as to the contents of the rec- ord will be considered as acquiesced i N Texas, etc, RCo v Pennell (Tex Civ App, 1893), 21 S W Rep 273 See Green v Blalack, 25 Tex 417 In California, where on appeal the respondent fails to file a brief and no oral argument is made in his behalf, and the appellant attacks the findings as not justified by the evidence, the court will assume that his point is well taken, and will reverse the judg 1 - ment. Richter v Fresno Canal, etc, Co (Ca L, 1894), 36 Pac Rep 96; Davis v Hart (Ca L, 1894), 37 Pac Rep 486 But in Indiana, while the court never goes beyond the brief of the ap- pellant to search the record in quest of errors not pointed out, yet, al- though the appellee does not file any brief at all, he is entitled to the bene- fit of everything in the record which may prevent a reversal of the judg- ment upon the errors assigne d "The silence of the appellee on any point is not equal to an agreement to waive the point." Martin v Martin, 74 Ind 207; Emerson v Opp (Ind App, 1894), 37 N E Rep 24 A Cross-appeal not prosecuted by fil- ing a brief will be deemed to have been abandone d Randolph v State, 73 Tex 485 Where the appellant makes no assignment of errors, and the appellee makes a cross-assign- ment but files no brief, the cross-as- signment will be stricken out and the appeal dismisse d Sumner v Dunkin, 42 Ind 530 Rehearin g Where no brief has the court considering the questions of the brief of the appellant.

Autor of the post: Undefined

McMullen v Clark, 49 Ind Post Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 4:56:08 +0000
1 When Neither Party Files a brief, the appeal will be dismisse d 2 3 Effect of Failure to File within Ti Me The time within which briefs must be filed varies in the several states, 3 and no gen- eral rule can be stated with regard to the effect of the failure to been filed by the appellee, a rehearing will not be granted merely to obtain a decision of certain matters overlooked by the court. Bitting v Ten Eyck, 82 Ind 421 Nor will it be granted to either party failing to file or make any argument when the case was submit- te d Wachendorf v Lancaster, 61 Iowa 509 1 Emerick v Ogden City, 9 Utah 372 In Wyoming, under such circum- stances, the appellant may submit the cause with or without oral argument, and the appellee will not be hear d Cronkhite v Bothwell, 3 Wyoming 739 See Campodonico v Oregon Im P Co, 85Cal218, in note i, next pag e Indiana Where the appellee failed to file a brief, the questions on appeal were considered as presented in the brief of the appellant. McMullen v Clark, 49 Ind 77 See Louisville, etc, RCo v Stommel, 126 Ind 35 Iowa Where there is no argument for the appellee, the court will stop in its consideration of the case upon dis- covering error demanding reversa L Questions not argued upon both sides will not be decided unless absolutely necessar Y McKern -v Albia, 69 Iowa 447; Deeds v Chicago, etc, RCo, 69 Iowa 164; Gilfeather v Council Bluffs, 69 Iowa 310 2 Denver, etc, RCo v Woy, 7 Colo556 In Nebraska the court will examine the pleadings and evidence, and if the judgment is in conformity therewith it will be affirme d Phenix In S Co v Reams, 37 Neb 423, followed in Damon v Omaha, 38 Neb 583; Lang- don v Campbell ( Neb, 1894), 61 N W Rep 84 Objections to instructions given or refused will not be considered when a case is submitted without briefs from either party pointing out the objec- tion S Sanders v Quick, 28 Neb 162 3 Last Day Falling on Sunda Y In In- diana it is sixty days from the time of submission, and, in computing the time allowed, when the last day falls on Sunday it will be exclude d Hogue v McClintock, 76 Ind 205 Washingto N The rule of the Su- preme Court of Washington, which provides that upon the final hearing of any application for original writs (other than writs of habeas corpus) each side shall serve and file copies of points and authorities, applies only to the final hearing on the application for the writ, and not to a trial on the merits; but for the latter, briefs should be filed within the usual time allowe d So held on an application for a writ of certiorar I State v Moore, 5 Wash 205 In Texas, by statute, the appellant must, within a certain time before filing the transcript in the Court of Civil Appeals, file with the clerk of the lower court a copy of his brief, and the clerk must forthwith give notice to the opposite party of such filin g As no time is directly prescribed by statute or fixed by the rules within which the appellant must file his brief in the Court of Civil Appeals, he may, having duly filed it below, file it there at any time before the cause is sub- mitte d But when it is not filed in the court below within the time pre- scribed, and no sufficient excuse is shown for the failure, he will not be allowed to file it in the Court of Civil Appeals except where the appellee agrees thereto in writin g Werner -v Kasten (Tex Civ App, 1894), 25 S W Rep 317 California An objection in re- spondent's brief, filed after the case was submitted, that the transcript does not contain the whole record, will not be considere d Bennett v Creditors, 22Cal38 United States Supreme Court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 | 267 | 268

mail to: pirton@mail.ru