Bouldin v. Sheerer

Decided February 25, 1920

Arizona Supreme Court · decided 1920-02-25

<p>Appeal and Error — Appeal Dismissed in Absence op Assignments op Error. — Where no assignments of error have been filed by appellant or appear in tie briefs filed, the appeal will be dismissed; the rule being that, in the absence of any assignment of error, and none appearing upon the face of the record, the appeal may be either dismissed or the judgment affirmed.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1961

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““We have decided in a long line of cases that, in the absence of any assignment of error, and none appearing upon the face of the record, the appeal may be either dismissed or the judgment affirmed. [Authorities cited.] The members of the bar of the state must take notice that this salutary rule will hereafter be strictly enforced.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hansen v. Hansen

Relies on Putnam v. Putnam · Wolfley v. Gila River Irrigation Co. · Daggs v. Hoskins

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Appeal dismissed · Decided 1920-02-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1No assignments of error have been filed by appellant or appear in the briefs filed. We have decided in a long line of cases that, in the absence of any assignment of error, and none appearing upon the face of the record, the appeal may be either dismissed or the judgment affirmed. Maricopa County v. Jordan, 7 Ariz. 4, 60 Pac. 693; Gardner v. Gardner, 7 Ariz. 73, 60 Pac. 875; Trimble et al. v. Long, 6 Ariz. 268, 56 Pac. 731; Daggs et al. v. Field, 6 Ariz. 47, 52 Pac. 773; Daggs et al. v. Hoskins et al., 5 Ariz. 236, 52 Pac. 350; Putnam v. Putnam, 3 Ariz. 182, 24 Pac. 320.; Wolfley v. Gila River Irr. Co., 3 Ariz. 176, 24 Pac. 257.

¶2 *248The members of the bar of the state must take notice that this salutary rule will hereafter be strictly enforced. '

¶3The appeal in this case is dismissed.