Braxton v. Stewart
Citation | 539 So.2d 284 |
Parties | Leroy and Hazel BRAXTON v. Henry STEWART. Civ. 6699. |
Decision Date | 12 October 1988 |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Alice L. Anderson, Enterprise, for appellant.
James W. Kelly of Kelly and Knowles, Geneva, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final order of the Circuit Court of Geneva County.
Stewart, the appellee, has made a motion to dismiss this appeal on the grounds that appellants, the Braxtons, have failed to substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 28(a), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure.
We find that the Braxtons' brief, in fact, does not comply with Rule 28(a), A.R.A.P.
Generally, the policy of the Court of Civil Appeals is to reach the merits of an appeal whenever possible. Battles v. San Ann Service Inc., 441 So.2d 925 (Ala.Civ.App.1983).
However, we find that the Braxtons' brief so fails to comply with Rule 28(a), A.R.A.P., that we are left with no choice but to affirm the trial court.
We quote the mandatory language of Rule 28, A.R.A.P:
Turning to the Braxtons' brief, we find that the following required parts are either lacking or not readily discernible: (1) a table of cases; (2) a statement of the case, indicating briefly the nature of the case; (3) a statement of the issues; (4) a full statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review; (5) an argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented; and (6) a short conclusion, stating the precise relief sought.
An appellate court must determine from the appellant's brief whether an issue on the merits has been raised in a manner which is fair to all those concerned. Thoman Engineers, Inc. v. McDonald, 57 Ala.App. 287, 328 So.2d 293 (Ala.Civ.App.1976).
"The requisite statement of issues should be expressed tersely, with clarity and without ambiguity, and it must be informative in the sense that it provides to adverse parties in capsule form a fair basis for response and suggests to the appeals court an outline sketch of the relief available in the context of the existing scope and principles of review."
Thoman Engineers, Inc., 328 So.2d at 294 (Emphasis supplied).
Stated another way, Rule 28(a) is mandatory with regard to both the form and substance of the appellant's brief, serving the dual function of clarifying the issue(s) on appeal to allow an effective response by the adverse party, and providing the appellate court with a reasoned argument and an avenue of available relief, based upon such...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marshall Cnty. Dep't of Human Res. v. R.H. (Ex parte R.H.)
...an appellate court cannot consider issues not argued by a petitioner, which are considered to be waived. See Braxton v. Stewart, 539 So. 2d 284, 286 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988) ("An appeals court will consider only those issues properly delineated as such, and no matter will be considered ... unl......
-
D.I. v. I.G.
...appeal is abandoned or waived." ’ "); see also T.C.M. v. W.L.K., 248 So.3d 1, 4 n.1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017) (quoting Braxton v. Stewart, 539 So.2d 284, 286 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988) ) (" ‘An appeals court will consider only those issues properly delineated as such, and no matter will be considere......
-
Ala. Bd. of Examiners in Psychology v. Hamilton
...at 647 n. 3 (quoting Tucker v. Cullman–Jefferson Cntys. Gas Dist., 864 So.2d 317, 319 (Ala.2003), quoting in turn Braxton v. Stewart, 539 So.2d 284, 286 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) ). The argument asserted in Knoblett involved the failure of a party to raise an issue in a brief before this court, no......
-
Cain v. Howorth
...matter will be considered on appeal unless presented and argued in brief. Ex parte Riley, 464 So.2d 92 (Ala.1985).' Braxton v. Stewart, 539 So.2d 284, 286 (Ala.Civ.App.1988)." Tucker v. Cullman-Jefferson Counties Gas Dist., 864 So.2d 317, 319 Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, we r......