 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nowicki v. Nowicki1/29/2003
dicial resources, especially in light of the particularly voluminous record in this case. Worse, such an undertaking would be mere speculation and surmise, and thus unfair to all parties to this appeal, including Nowicki. Accordingly, we do not engage in such endeavors, because
the appellant, not having properly briefed the motley array of questions stated and advanced, cannot with reason expect the appellate court to make a painstaking survey of them in order to cull unimportant questions and determine the crucial ones, nor has he the right to cast upon it his burden of studying the record and authorities to essay the essential to the maintenance of the appeal and its efficient prosecution. Ala Moana Boat Owners' Ass'n, 50 Haw. at 159, 434 P.2d at 518 (internal quotation marks, block quote format and citation omitted).
Moreover, the rules of appellate procedure
require specific arguments which demonstrate to this court, why a particular viewpoint should be adopted. Anything less can only be an imposition upon the court. Throughout its entire argument, the appellant has cast the burden on this court to ascertain the grounds of its objection to the trial court's findings of facts and conclusions of law. Counsel have no right to cast the burden on the court of searching through a voluminous record to find the ground of his objection and where the errors complained of are not squarely presented by the bill of exceptions, as in this exception, we shall follow the practice of this court and refuse to consider them.
Close scrutiny of the appellant's opening brief reveals only generalities and assertions amounting to mere conclusions of law. Where arguments in a brief are unsupported by citations of authorities, this court will not ordinarily search out authorities, and will assume that counsel, after diligent search, had been unable to find any supporting authority.
Appellant has the burden of sustaining his allegations of error against the presumption of correctness and regularity that attend the decision of the lower court. he burden of showing error is on the plaintiffs in error. We necessarily approach a case with the assumption that no error has been committed upon the trial and until this assumption has been overcome by a positive showing the prevailing party is entitled to an affirmance.
Appellant has not answered appellee's contentions as to the deficiencies of its opening brief, and has failed to file a reply brief.
We are of the opinion that appellant's failure to observe the requirements of the rules of this court in its opening brief merits dismissal of the appeal. Id. at 158-59, 434 P.2d at 518 (ellipsis, internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Hence, we dismiss Nowicki's appeal. See Bettencourt, 80 Hawaii at 230, 909 P.2d at 558 ("Notwithstanding such policy [of affording litigants the opportunity to have their cases heard on the merits, where possible], we are . . . unable to consider the merits of appellant's contention . . . because appellant failed to include the transcript of the applicable hearing in the record on appeal."); Weinberg, 78 Hawaii at 49, 890 P.2d at 286 (appellants having failed to present argument on an issue on appeal, that issue was not subject to review); Alamida, 53 Haw. at 405, 495 P.2d at 590 (where appellant failed to "set forth the manner in which the alleged errors were raised in the trial court," its appeal was dismissed as to those alleged errors).
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Nowicki's appeal is dismissed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|