Stevens v. O'Neill
| Decision Date | 14 January 1902 |
| Citation | 62 N.E. 424,169 N.Y. 375 |
| Parties | STEVENS v. O'NEILL. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, First department.
Action by Louis Vergnes Stevens against Hugh O'Neill. From a judgment of the appellate division (64 N. Y. Supp. 663) affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Edward W. S. Johnston and Isaac Fromme, for appellant.
Gilbert Ray Hawes, for respondent.
This is an action for false imprisonment, in which the facts were few, simple, and unchangeably settled by unanimous affirmance, yet the points presented by the learned counsel for the appellant cover 117 printed pages, of which more than two-thirds is devoted to quotations from the evidence and from adjudged cases. The entire law governing the subject of false imprisonment is so well settled that it could be written in fewer words than are devoted to that portion which the counsel deems applicable to this case. Our rules require each party to ‘briefly state upon his printed points, in a separate form, the leading facts which he deems established, with a reference to the folios where the evidence of such facts may be found.’ Rule 8. This necessarily excludes from every brief prepared for use in this court lengthy quotations from the evidence, particularly in a case of unanimous affirmance, where the constitution prohibits a review of the facts. The rule calls for the facts, not the evidence. Even in stating the facts deemed established, except in two classes of cases, only those facts should be mentioned which are either specifically found, or are presumed to have been found, according to the rules governing appeals to this court. The excepted cases are: First, where there is a reversal by the court below; second, where there is an affirmance, but it is not unanimous, and it is claimed that there is no evidence whatever to support a fact which is necessary to sustain the judgment. In all cases every fact stated should be fortified by a reference to the folios of the appeal book where the evidence to support it may be found, for the rule so requires; and, unless it is complied with, the statement is of such slight value that the judges are frequently compelled to disregard it, and laboriously discover the facts for themselves by reading the entire record. This involves great labor, which in most cases might be avoided by a careful observance of the rule. Even when the affirmance is not unanimous, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Rourke v. Long
...This involves great labor, which * * * might be avoided by a careful observance of the' CPLR requirements. (Stevens v. O'Neill, 169 N.Y. 375, 376--377, 62 N.E. 424, 425.) The CPLR requires that the appendix, which is prepared by the appellant, contain 'only such parts of the record on appea......
-
Bolger v. United States
...See Worden v. Davis, 195 N.Y. 391, 88 N.E. 745, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 1196; Stevens v. O'Neill, 51 App.Div. 364, 64 N.Y.S. 663, affirmed 169 N.Y. 375, 62 N.E. 424. New York law is applicable under the rule of United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210. See, also, United Stat......
-
Loughry v. Lincoln First Bank, N.A.
... ... New York Cent. & Hudson Riv. R.R. Co., 56 N.Y. 44, 47-48, supra; Craven v. Bloomingdale, 171 N.Y. 439, 64 N.E. 169; Stevens v. O'Neill, 51 App.Div. 364, 64 N.Y.S. 663, affd. 169 N.Y ... 375, 62 N.E. 424), or the wrong was in pursuance of a recognized business system of ... ...
-
Oliver v. Kessler
...Mich. 72, 52 N.W. 801; Carson v. Edgeworth, 43 Mich. 241, 5 N.W. 282; Schofield v. Ferrers, 47 Pa. 194, 86 Am.Dec. 532; Stevens v. O'Neill, 169 N.Y. 375, 62 N.E. 424; Kelly v. Durham Traction Co., 132 N.C. 368, 43 S.E. 923; McCarthy v. De Armit, 99 Pa. Plaintiff was shown to be industrious ......
-
Form And Content Of Appellate Briefs
...Assn., 41 N.Y.2d 578, 584, 394 N.Y.S.2d 179, 183 (1977) where costs were denied for excessive briefs. 38 N.Y.2d at 5, 377 N.Y.S.2d at 451. 169 N.Y. 375, 376 Id. at 377. 169 N.Y. at 377. This article is for general information and does not include full legal analysis of the matters presented......
-
Chapter 29 Legal-Writing Ethics
...1147.[523] . Id.[524] . Slater v. Gallman, 38 N.Y.2d 1, 4–5, 377 N.Y.S.2d 448 (1975).[525] . See id. at 5 n.1; accord Stevens v. O’Neill, 169 N.Y. 375, 376, 62 N.E. 424 (1902) (per curiam) (commenting on how typewriters rather than pens allow verbosity).[526] . Rule 7.1(r) (22 NYCRR 1200.9(......