Opinion · Supreme Court of Iowa
Inghram Ex Rel. Inghram v. Dairyland Mutual Insurance Co.
Inghram Ex Rel. Inghram v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., No. 56131, UP1920832 (Iowa Feb. 20, 1974)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of Iowa
- Jurisdiction
- Iowa
- Date
- 1974-02-20
- Topic
- general
noting that we do not “assume a partisan role and undertake [a party’s] research and advocacy” | noting that we do not “assume a partisan role and undertake [a party’s] research and advocacy” | holding supreme court was “not bound to consider a party’s position” where the party failed to comply with appellate rules | noting that we do not “assume a partisan role and undertake [a party’s] research and advocacy” | observing that our appellate courts refuse “to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy” | noting that we do not “assume a partisan role and undertake [a party’s] research and advocacy” | noting that we do not “assume a partisan role and undertake [a party’s] research and advocacy” | noting that we do not “assume a partisan role and undertake [a party’s] research and advocacy” | finding that reaching the merits of the case “would require us to 2 The district court had broad discretion in ruling on Hart’s motion under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.18(5)(k). See State v. Jonas, 904 N.W.2d 566, 570–71 (Iowa 2017 | dismissing an appeal because the appellant failed “to cite or mention 18 a single authority” | declining to reach the merits of an argument that “would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy” | noting wholesale failure to comply with the rules can lead to summary disposition of an appeal | refusing to reach the merits of an appeal when doing so “would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy” | refusing to reach the merits of an appeal when doing so “would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy” | noting the court will dismiss an appeal where to reach the merits of the case required the court to assume a partisan role and undertake the 5 appellant’s research and advocacy | declining to “assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy” | refusing to assume “a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy” | declining to “assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy” | declining to undertake research and advocacy where appellant’s arguments were underdeveloped | declining to undertake research and advocacy where appellant’s arguments were underdeveloped | dismissing appeal because of “wholesale failure to comply with our appellate rules,” and refusing to reach the merits of the case as such action “would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy” | “To reach the merits of this case would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy.” | “To reach the merits of this [issue] would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy.” | “To reach the merits of this case would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy. This role is one we refuse to assume.” | “To reach the merits of this case would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy. This role is one we refuse to assume.” | “To reach the merits of this case would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy. This role is one we refuse to assume.” | “To reach the merits of this case would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy. This role is one we refuse to assume.” | “To reach the merits of this case would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy. This role is one we refuse to assume.” | “To reach the merits of this case would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy. This role is one we refuse to assume.” | “To reach the merits of this case would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake th
Citator
- Cited by
- 50 opinions
Defendant insurance company appeals a judgment for refusing to defend under an automobile liability insurance policy. We dismiss the appeal.
On June 23, 1970 we filed our opinion in Inghram v. Dairyland Mutual Ins. Co., 178 N.W.2d 299 (Iowa 1970) in which this same action was “(r)eversed and remanded with instructions that an order on adjudication of law points be entered consistent with this opinion.”
Apparently on a theory thought to be excluded from our decision (see 178 N.W.2d at 300) the matter was upon remand again litigated in district court. This resulted in a judgment against Dairyland for the $13,274.84 described in our earlier opinion. We dismiss this appeal because of wholesale failure to comply with our appellate rules.
Dairyland’s counsel have filed with us a brief and argument which fails to conform with the requirements of either the former or present rule 344, Rules of Civil Procedure (contents of briefs and arguments on appeal). The brief fails to cite or mention a single authority; not one case or statute is listed or argued.
We have from time to time noted such unprofessional failure can lead to summary disposition of an appeal. We are not bound to consider a party’s position upon such failure either in a criminal case (State v. Streit, 248 Iowa 260, 80 N.W.2d 318, and State v. Fiedler, 260 Iowa 1198, 152 N.W.2d 236) or civil case (Olson v. *240 Olson, 180 N.W.2d 427 (Iowa 1970), and James v. Rosen, 203 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 1972)).
In such situations we have generally, as a matter of grace, proceeded with a determination of the appeal on its merits, supplying by our own efforts the legal research which the rules prescribe should be undertaken in the first instance by counsel. But we believe the omissions in this case demand enforcement of our appellate rules. To reach the merits of this case would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy. This role is one we refuse to assume.
Appeal dismissed.
All Justices concur, except LeGRAND, J., who takes no part.