Butler v. United States
| Citation | 108 F.2d 27 |
| Decision Date | 07 December 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 11564.,11564. |
| Parties | BUTLER et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
G. W. Botts, of De Witt, Ark., for appellants.
Russell Morton Brown, of Washington, D. C., Atty., Department of Justice (Norman M. Littell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gordon Frierson, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Little Rock, Ark., and Charles R. Denny, Jr., of Washington, D. C., Atty., Department of Justice, on the brief), for appellee.
Before STONE, SANBORN, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in condemnation proceedings instituted by the United States. It has moved to dismiss the appeal for failure of the appellants to comply with the fourth subdivision of paragraph 2 of Rule 14 of the Rules of this Court (effective September 16, 1938), which requires that a brief shall contain Paragraph 4 of Rule 14 provides: "When, according to this rule, an appellant in a criminal case is in default, the appeal may be summarily dismissed; and, on motion, any appeal may be dismissed; * * *."
With a single exception, all of the appellants' points to be relied upon as stated in their brief relate to alleged errors with respect to the admission or rejection of evidence, without quoting such evidence with the challenged rulings thereon and without showing what rulings are challenged. The only point which does not relate to evidence admitted or rejected is stated as follows: "The court erred in rendering judgment to condemn the land in controversy." This point is obviously insufficient to direct this Court's attention to any action or ruling of the court below which is claimed to be erroneous. Ayers v. United States, 8 Cir., 58 F.2d 607, 608; Wade v. Blieden, 8 Cir., 86 F.2d 75, 77; Krause v. Snyder, 8 Cir., 87 F.2d 723, 725; Hobbs-Western Co. v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., Ltd., 8 Cir., 102 F.2d 32, 34; Humphreys Gold Corp. v. Lewis, 9 Cir., 90 F.2d 896, 899.
A failure to comply with the requirements of the fourth subdivision of paragraph 2 of Rule 14 of the Rules of this Court, which is a mere restatement of a rule which has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Minnesota v. United States
...v. Cub Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474, 481-483, 53 S. Ct. 252, 77 L.Ed. 439; Elzig v. Gudwangen, 8 Cir., 91 F.2d 434, 436; Butler v. United States, 8 Cir., 108 F.2d 27, 28; Lawson v. United States, 8 Cir., 297 F. 418, 419. 2 Storley v. Armour & Co., 8 Cir., 107 F.2d 499, 504; Kaiser v. Standar......
-
Twentieth Century-Fox F. Corp. v. Brookside Th. Corp.
...Squibb & Sons v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 8 Cir., 69 F.2d 685; Hard & Rand v. Biston Coffee Co., 8 Cir., 41 F.2d 625; Butler v. United States, 8 Cir., 108 F.2d 27: Ed. S. Michelson, Inc. v. Nebraska Tire & Rubber Co., 8 Cir., 63 F.2d 597. The error assigned must be sufficiently specific......
-
Harper v. United States
...record on which the quotations appear." The asserted errors are not entitled to detailed consideration of this court. Butler v. United States, 8 Cir., 108 F.2d 27; Marx v. United States, 8 Cir., 86 F.2d 245; Greenberg v. United States, 8 Cir., 297 F. 45; Turner v. United States, 8 Cir., 32 ......
-
Anderson v. Federal Cartridge Corporation
...Squibb & Sons v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 8 Cir., 69 F.2d 685; Hard & Rand v. Biston Coffee Co., 8 Cir., 41 F.2d 625; Butler v. United States, 8 Cir., 108 F.2d 27; Ed S. Michelson, Inc. v. Nebraska Tire & Rubber Co., 8 Cir., 63 F.2d 597. The error assigned must be sufficiently specific ......