Young et al. v. Schreiner

3 Citing cases

  1. Silverthorne v. King

    179 Ind. App. 310 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 8 times

    Where no brief is filed by the [1] appellee the judgment may be reversed if the appellants' brief presents a prima facie case of error. Young et al. v. Schreiner (1959), 130 Ind. App. 39, at 40, 161 N.E.2d 611, at 612. This rule exists to relieve the Supreme or Appellate Court of the burden of controverting the arguments and contentions advanced by appellant for reversal where such duty properly lies with counsel for the appellee.

  2. Teamsters Local #297 v. Air-Flow Sheet Metal

    143 Ind. App. 322 (Ind. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 4 times

    "The rule will not be invoked unless the appellant's brief makes an apparent or prima 2. facie showing of reversible error." See also: Young, et al. v. Schreiner (1959), 130 Ind. App. 39, 161 N.E.2d 611; Pittsburgh etc., R. Co. v. Linder (1925), 195 Ind. 569, 145 N.E. 885; Reed, Admr. v. Brown (1939), 215 Ind. 417, 19 N.E.2d 1015. This court likewise is not unmindful of the obligations resting upon appellant on appeal as specifically set forth in N Y Central Ry. Co. v. Milhiser (1952), 231 Ind. 180, 106 N.E.2d 453, as follows:

  3. Avery v. Benton

    206 N.E.2d 374 (Ind. Ct. App. 1965)

    Such neglect on the part of appellee 1. to file a brief controverting the errors complained of by appellant is tantamount to a confession of errors and this court may reverse if appellant's assignment of errors and brief make an apparent or prima facie showing of reversible error. Ellet v. Ellet (1965), 137 Ind. App. 96, 205 N.E.2d 555; Young et al. v. Schreiner (1959), 130 Ind. App. 39, 161 N.E.2d 611; Mucker, Admr., etc. v. Public Serv. Comm. of Ind. (1959), 129 Ind. App. 455, 157 N.E.2d 308. In justice to appellee the record shows that on January 21, 1965 an affidavit entitled "Petition for Leave to File Appellee's Brief After Expiration of Time", was filed, which petition was considered by the court, but since the rules are binding on the court as well as the litigants, said petition was denied by this court.