Elsperman v. Plump, 1-782
| Decision Date | 05 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-782,1-782 |
| Citation | 443 N.E.2d 1206 |
| Parties | Frank D. ELSPERMAN and Connie E. Elsperman, Parents of DeWayne G. Elsperman, deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Norman A. PLUMP and the Loyal Order of the Moose-Lodge # 85, Defendants-Appellees. A 202. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Charles C. Griffith, Johnson, Carroll & Griffith, Evansville, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Thomas G. Krochta, Van Stone & Krochta, Evansville, for defendants-appellees.
This court, having examined the appellants' brief herein, acting on its own motion, now finds that said brief is defective and not in compliance with Indiana Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(5) and applicable decisions of this court interpreting said rule in the following particulars:
1. Appellants' brief section III "Statement of Facts," consists of a twenty-five (25) page summary of the testimony of each witness on direct, cross, redirect, and recross-examination, rather than a narrative statement of facts supported by references to the record.
2. Appellate Rule 8.3(A) provides:
"The brief of Appellant shall contain under appropriate headings and in the order here indicated:
....
(5) A statement of the facts relevant to the issues presented for review, with appropriate references to the record...."
3. This court in interpreting Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(5) has held that the statement of facts in an appellate brief should be a concise narrative summary of the facts in a light most favorable to the judgment and should not be a summary of each witness's testimony. Morris v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 74; Moore v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 426 N.E.2d 86, dismissed for failure of appellant to file an amended brief, Ind.App., 428 N.E.2d 806.
4. This court believes the proper remedial action is to order appellants to rebrief in compliance with the rules and decisions of this court. See Moore, 426 N.E.2d at 90. That appellants should amend their brief only as to the statement of facts and file such amended brief within twenty-one (21) days of the receipt of this order. That appellees should have twenty-one (21) days after the filing of appellants' amended brief to amend their appellees' brief only as to the statement of facts.
Therefore, it is ordered that appellants file an amended brief, amended only as to the statement of facts, in order to comply with Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(5) and the decisions of this court, said amended brief to be filed within twenty-one (21) days...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dettman v. Sumner
...rather than the summarization of each witness's testimony. Burnett v. Heckelman, (1983) Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 1094; Elsperman v. Plump, (1983) Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 1206; Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(5). However, we often overlook inadequate briefing in order to decide cases ......
-
Walters v. Dean, 2-1285A392
...of the testimony is not a statement of facts within the meaning of Ind. Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(5). Elsperman v. Plump (1983), Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 1206; Morris v. State (1982), Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 74; Moore v. State (1981), Ind.App., 426 N.E.2d 86 (dismissed for failure ......
-
Burnett v. Heckelman
...does not constitute a narrative statement of the facts. Miller v. State, (1983) Ind.App., 449 N.E.2d 1119, 1120; Elsperman v. Plump, (1983) Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 1206, 1206; Moore v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 428 N.E.2d 806, 807.2 Mary is the sole survivor of these parties and is the only plai......
-
Swain v. Swain, 18A02-9005-CV-00278
...v. Frazee (1984), Ind.App., 471 N.E.2d 1163, 1166 n. 1; Miller v. State (1983), Ind.App., 449 N.E.2d 1119, 1120; Elsperman v. Plump (1983), Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 1206, 1206-1207. Given the great weight of this authority, it is inexcusable for counsel at this late date to persist in presentin......