Laessig v. May D & F, 20810
| Decision Date | 17 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 20810,20810 |
| Citation | 402 P.2d 183,157 Colo. 260 |
| Parties | Eric A. LAESSIG, Plaintiff in Error, v. MAY D & F and American Credit Co., Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Louis F. Pell, Jr., Littleton, for plaintiff in error.
Duane O. Littell, Ronald O. Sylling, Denver, for defendant in error, May D & F.
Paul Ruston, Denver, for defendant in error, American Credit Co.
We will refer to plaintiff in error as the plaintiff or by name, and to defendants in error as the defendants. Plaintiff at all pertinent times was an employee of the United States Post Office.
It was alleged in the complaint filed by the plaintiff that the defendants libeled him by causing the following document to be delivered to his employer through the United States mail:
'we assure you of our desire to handle this claim in a friendly manner without further action being necessary, and your assistance to have contact made with us is greatly appreciated.
'Yours truly,
'AMERICAN CREDIT CO.
'* * * maliciously and wilfully publish and print among various credit investigation companies the fact that plaintiff was indebted to May D&F that such fact as stated was false, misleading, defamatory, libelous and without legal excuse, and had a tendency to and did injure plaintiff in his good name and credit.'
He sought general damages in the amount of $7,500.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of $2,000.00.
The defendants denied the material allegations of the complaint, and the case was tried to a jury. At the conclusion of the evidence offered by the plaintiff, counsel for defendants moved for a directed verdict, which was granted by the trial court. The record before us contains no reporter's transcript and all that appears therein concerning the action of the trial court in directing the verdict is as follows:
'And thereupon comes the evidence to conclusion of plaintiff's case.
'And thereupon, defendants orally move the Court for a directed verdict for dismissal, the same is argued by counsel, and the Court being now sufficiently advised in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruff v. Kezer, 79SA256
...brief were not before the trial court, and we do not consider them in determining the propriety of summary judgment. Laessig v. May D & F, 157 Colo. 260, 402 P.2d 183 (1965).13 Those duties include providing:a means for submission of confidential petitions for a referendum;a means of verifi......
-
McCall v. Meyers
...903 P.2d 1194 (Colo.App.1995). A party cannot overcome a deficiency in the record by statements in the briefs. Laessig v. May D & F, 157 Colo. 260, 402 P.2d 183 (1965)(court looks solely to record when determining whether trial court acted properly and statements in brief are not a substitu......
-
People v. Ullery
...adequate record on appeal. A judgment entered by a court of general jurisdiction is presumed to be correct. See Laessig v. May D & F, 157 Colo. 260, 262, 402 P.2d 183, 185 (1965). Thus, it is the duty of the party asserting error to present a record demonstrating that error. See C.A.R. 10; ......
-
Trosper v. Wilkerson
...is presumed to be correct until the contrary is affirmatively shown. Schuster v. Zwicker, 659 P.2d 687 (Colo.1983); Laessig v. May D & F, 157 Colo. 260, 402 P.2d 183 (1965). From the limited record, which fails to include the bill of costs, we conclude that there was no abuse of Given our d......