Legal Opinion

Beyel v. Degan

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided April 5, 1983No. 401-81PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBillings, C.J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment rendered against him after a trial by court. Although he appears pro se on appeal, he was represented by counsel at trial.

We note at the outset that defendant has failed to comply with the rules of this Court regarding the requisites of adequate briefing: he fails to state the case concisely, V.R.A.P. 28(a) (2); he does not clearly delineate the issues presented for our determination, V.R.A.P. 28(a)(3); nor does he refer to any statutory or case law in support of his arguments. V.R.A.P. 28 (a) (4). We have in the past refused to review claims of error…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Quazzo v. QuazzoSupreme Court of Vermont · 1978
  2. Stamato v. QuazzoSupreme Court of Vermont · 1980
  3. State v. SettleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1982
  4. Griffith v. NielsenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1982
  5. Cliche v. ClicheSupreme Court of Vermont · 1982

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Zorn v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 2011
  2. Walsh v. Cluba and Good Stuff, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2015
  3. Trustees of Net Realty Holding Trust v. AVCO Financial Services of Barre, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1984
  4. State v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
  5. Gates v. GatesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1998

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API