Richard v. Richard

California Court of Appeal Mar 17, 1954 No. Civ. 19926Published

Before: McCOMB

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment because the appellants' opening brief failed to comply with Rule 15(a) of the Rules on Appeal by failing to provide appropriate headings or specific assignments of error.

Issues

Whether the appellants' opening brief complied with the requirements of Rule 15(a) of the Rules on Appeal.
Whether a general assignment of error that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment is sufficient to challenge specific findings of fact.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We do not pass upon the merits of the appeal in this case for the reason that appellants’ opening brief wholly fails to meet the requirements of rule 15(a), Rules on Appeal”

“Where there are several findings of fact, as in the instant cáse, a general assignment of error that the judgment is not supported by the evidenec is insufficient to call to the appellate court’s attention the correctness of any particular finding”

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of defendants after trial before the court in an action for partition, plaintiffs appeal.

We do not pass upon the merits of the appeal in this case for the reason that appellants’ opening brief wholly fails to meet the requirements of rule 15(a), Rules on Appeal, 36 Cal.2d 1, 15. Rule 15(a) reads thus:

“Each point in a brief shall appear separately under an appropriate heading, with subheadings if desired. Such headings need not be technical 1 assignments of errors’ but should

[902]

be concise headings which are generally descriptive of the subject matter covered. The statement of any matter in the record shall be supported by appropriate reference to the record. Every brief shall be prefaced by a topical index of its contents and a table of authorities, separately listing eases, statutes, court rules, constitutional provisions, and other authorities. ’ ’

In the instant case the only attempt to comply with this rule in appellants’ opening brief is this statement, “The evident is insufficient to support the judgment.”

Where there are several findings of fact, as in the instant cáse, a general assignment of error that the judgment is not supported by the evidenec is insufficient to call to the appellate court’s attention the correctness of any particular finding of fact.

The rule is accurately stated in California Jurisprudence 2d (1952), Appeal and Error, section 481, page 313, thus: “The headings should not only show the points involved in the appeal but should be so stated as to compel a reversal in the event that the points stated in the headings are well taken. ’ ’

A judgment supported by a verdict or findings cannot be assailed on the ground that it is not supported by the evidence so long as the verdict or findings remain undisturbed. The attack must therefore be not upon the judgment directly but upon the verdict or findings. Specifications as to the insufficiency of such evidence must be directed to material findings of fact.

(Cf. Coveny

Hale,

Richard v. Richard

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief