Here is the Rule please read it carefully! A Rule
Post# of 82686
(Total Views: 377)
Posted On: 02/20/2019 6:01:37 PM
Here is the Rule please read it carefully!
A Rule 36 judgment can be entered without an opinion when it is determined by the panel that any one of five conditions exist and a written opinion would not have precedential value. The five conditions are:
The judgment, decision, or order of the trial court appealed from is based on findings that are not clearly erroneous.
The evidence supporting the jury’s verdict is sufficient.
The record supports summary judgment, directed verdict, or judgment on the pleadings.
The decision of an administrative agency warrants affirmance under the standard of review in the statute authorizing the petition for review.
A judgment or decision has been entered without an error of law.
So according to our case one of these conditions exist for a rule 36 to have been issued with no opinion. This tells me we have a procedural problem in one of the 5 things above and I cannot tell you what caused the judges to order it. If someone can point to one of the five conditions that happened in our case please point it out to me as I cannot figure it out. If no one can including some of our legal beagles on the board then we should go full steam ahead! In my humble opinion the judges have no clue and looked for technicality that I do not see please if I am wrong can someone point to the issue. If not I feel very confident that the appeal will be heard just from a “Due Process” standpoint that we are owed. All of this in my humble opinion!
A Rule 36 judgment can be entered without an opinion when it is determined by the panel that any one of five conditions exist and a written opinion would not have precedential value. The five conditions are:
The judgment, decision, or order of the trial court appealed from is based on findings that are not clearly erroneous.
The evidence supporting the jury’s verdict is sufficient.
The record supports summary judgment, directed verdict, or judgment on the pleadings.
The decision of an administrative agency warrants affirmance under the standard of review in the statute authorizing the petition for review.
A judgment or decision has been entered without an error of law.
So according to our case one of these conditions exist for a rule 36 to have been issued with no opinion. This tells me we have a procedural problem in one of the 5 things above and I cannot tell you what caused the judges to order it. If someone can point to one of the five conditions that happened in our case please point it out to me as I cannot figure it out. If no one can including some of our legal beagles on the board then we should go full steam ahead! In my humble opinion the judges have no clue and looked for technicality that I do not see please if I am wrong can someone point to the issue. If not I feel very confident that the appeal will be heard just from a “Due Process” standpoint that we are owed. All of this in my humble opinion!
(1)
(0)