Union Traction Co. v. Wolf

Decided June 2, 1920

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 1920-06-02

<p>Appeal. — Review.-—Faihurs of Appellee to File Briefs. — Reversal. —A failure on the part of an appellee to file a brief may be treated as a confession óf error warranting reversal.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1930

1 state decisions

Relies on People v. . Schmidt · Veit v. Windhorst · Eigelsbach v. Kanne

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1920-06-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Nichols, J.

¶1Appellee has failed to file any brief. 'It has been repeatedly held by this court and by the Supreme Court that a failure on the part of the appellee to file a brief may be treated as a confession of error, warranting reversal. Eigelsbach v. Kanne (1915), 184 Ind. 62, 110 N. E. 549; Huddleston v. Huddleston (1916), 184 Ind. 168, 110 N. E. 980; Veit v. Windhorst (1916), 184 Ind. 351, 110 N. E. 666. Having examined *393appellant’s brief, we are satisfied that in this case the rule should be invoked.

¶2Judgment reversed, with instruction to the trial court to grant a new trial.