Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

127 Colo. 414

258 P.2d 489

Knapp v. Fleming

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided April 27, 1953

Supreme Court of Colorado · decided 1953-04-27

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““A litigant has a right to act as his own attorney, Gray v. Justice’s Court, 18 Cal.App.2d 420 , 63 P.2d 1160 , ‘but, in so doing, should be restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as is required of those qualified to practice law before our courts; otherwise, ignorance is unjustly rewarded.’ Knapp v. Fleming, 127 Colo. 414 , 258 P.2d 489 ; Monastero v. Los Angeles Transit Co., 131 Cal.App.2d 156, 160-161 , 280 P.2d 187 .” 289 P.2d at 824 .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including LP v. Natrona County Department of Public Assistance & Social Services

“derogatory remarks concerning the trial judge”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Martin v. Essrig

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1953-04-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably LP v. Natrona County Department of Public Assistance & Social Services (1984), Manka v. Martin (1980)

24 state decisions

1001953196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Alter

¶1 delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2 G*. J. Knapp, plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff in the trial court, brought an action against Herman L. Fleming and Frank Kirtley to recover judgment against defendants in the sum of $250.00, with interest thereon. Upon trial to the court, and at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence, on motion of defendants, judgment of dismissal was entered, to reverse which plaintiff brings the case here by writ of error.

¶3 It appears from the record that plaintiff is acting here; and acted in the court below, as his own attorney. *415 The trial court repeatedly took this fact into consideration and permitted him to proceed with the presentation of his case in an unorthodox manner. A litigant is permitted to present his own case, but, in so doing, should be restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as is required of those qualified to practice law before our courts; otherwise, ignorance is unjustly rewarded.

¶4 Plaintiff’s brief is scurrilous, containing frequent invectives and vituperations, together with derogatory remarks concerning the trial judge and questioning the latter’s ability and integrity. It should be stricken. However, from the record and brief we observe that plaintiff has failed to comply with rule 27, R.C.P. Colo., concerning depositions; rule 59 (f), R.C.P. Colo., respecting the necessity for motions for new trials; and rule 115 (c) (3) R.C.P. Colo., providing for a concise statement of the case.

¶5 Plaintiff having failed to comply with our rules as above stated, the writ of error is dismissed.

/127/colo/414 · .json · Public domain