Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

A.M. SKIER AGENCY v. POCONO FUTURES (12/30/82)

filed: December 30, 1982.

A.M. SKIER AGENCY, INC.
v.
POCONO FUTURES, INC., APPELLANT



NO. 1873 October Term, 1979, Appeal from the Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc of April 12, 1982, of the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County, Civil No. 266 Jan. Term. 1978.

COUNSEL

Henry M. Biglan, Hop Bottom, for appellant.

Stephen Bresset, Honesdale, for appellee.

Cercone, President Judge, and McEwen and Hoffman, JJ.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 308 Pa. Super. Page 482]

We are here asked to consider an appeal from the judgment entered in favor of appellee in the amount of $1,800.00, plus interest and costs, as a result of a verdict by a jury after a trial upon the claim of appellee for the commission due it as a real estate broker. We are unable, however, to conduct a meaningful appellate review for a number of reasons but for the very particular reason that the brief of appellant is inadequate. Therefore, we quash the appeal.

While counsel presented oral argument on behalf of appellant, the brief of appellant does not indicate that it is the effort of that counsel but rather that it is the work of the principal of appellant. In any event, the brief is not simply inadequate by reason of any failure of technical compliance. Rather, the brief is essentially defective for the reasons that none of the contentions of appellant are developed, that there is not a single citation of any authority and, while the summary of the argument is composed of twelve lines, the argument portion of the brief itself is less than fourteen lines.

We quash this appeal for the reason that the brief of appellant does not comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. It should also be noted that, in addition, the record which appellant has provided for our examination is also inadequate at the least by reason of the absence of any transcript of the proceedings during which appellant claims error was committed and of the absence of an opinion of the Common Pleas Court.

It should be noted, however, that while we are unable to pursue adequate and meaningful appellate review of the claims of error, the study that can be provided would indicate that the contentions of appellant are totally without merit.

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure No. 2101 provides:

Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly

[ 308 Pa. Super. Page 483]

    as the circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they may be suppressed, and if the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.