Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 03 June 1929 |
| Docket Number | 27957 |
| Citation | 122 So. 529,154 Miss. 512 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. STATE |
APPEAL AND ERROR. Briefs. Appellate brief requires condensed statement of case and statement of propositions of law, with reasons and authorities.
An appellate brief requires a condensed statement of the party's case, together with a like statement of the propositions of law, with the reasons and authorities which sustain them.
Suggestion of Error Overruled, October 10, 1929.
APPEAL from circuit court of Alcorn county.
HON. C P. LONG, Judge.
Everett Johnson appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
G. C. Moreland, of Corinth, for appellant.
James W. Cassedy, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
No authorities cited in briefs.
The assignments of error relied on are solely of asserted errors of law. The errors are not manifest or self-evident, and yet not a single authority is cited in appellant's brief, nor is there any definite statement of any particular principle of law which appellant would have us apply.
The essentials of an appellate brief may be summarized as a condensed statement of the party's case, together with a like statement of the propositions of law which the party desires to have applied thereto, with the reasons and authorities which sustain them. In this important step in appellate procedure it is seldom that it is any more permissible to omit the authorities and their application than it is to omit the condensed statement of the case.
"As far as possible, the reasons assigned should be supported by the citation of authorities or they will not be considered, unless it is clearly apparent that they are well taken." 3 C. J., p. 1431; 3 Ency. Pl. & Pr., pp. 722, 723; 4 Stand. Ency. Proc. pp. 576, 577, 584, 585. (Elliott App. Proc., pp. 375, 376); and when not self-evident the party who advances them and cites no authority to support them may justly be said to have failed to maintain them.
It is a strange case upon which, in these days of tens of thousands of law books, no authority can be found, and when none is presented and the proposition is not manifestly well taken,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoops v. State
...Pate v. State, 419 So.2d 1324, 1325-26 (Miss.1982) (citing Dozier v. State, 247 Miss. 850, 157 So.2d 798 (1963); Johnson v. State, 154 Miss. 512, 122 So. 529 (1929); Bridges v. State, 154 Miss. 489, 122 So. 533 (1929)). As to constitutional challenges of statutes, we have With regard to the......
-
Nubby v. Scott
... ... 1062, page 2455, sec. 1071, page 2503, sec. 1086; May v ... May, 165 U.S. 310; Franz v. Buder, 34 F.2d 353; ... Nutt v. State, 96 Miss. 473 ... W. W ... Pierce, of Jackson, and Richardson & Sanford, of ... Philadelphia, for appellees ... Appellant, ... under the trust agreement dated April 30, 1931 ... R ... R. Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200; Johnson v ... State, 154 Miss. 512; Gates v. Seibert, 157 Mo ... 254, 57 S.W. 1065; Stewart v. Hirriman, 22 Am. Rep ... 408; Clark v. McClearey, 20 ... ...
-
King v. State
...trial court is correct, and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate some reversible error to this Court."); Johnson v. State, 154 Miss. 512, 513, 122 So. 529, 529 (1929) ("It is the duty of counsel to make more than an assertion; they should state reasons for their propositions, and c......
-
Wilcher v. State
...their propositions, and cite authorities in their support." Clark v. State , 503 So.2d 277, 280 (Miss. 1987) (quoting Johnson v. State , 154 Miss. 512, 122 So. 529 (1929) ). "Numerous cases support the position that an unsupported assignment of error will not be considered." Id. (citing Hun......