apparent case error in Mississippi

2026That is the appropriate course of action when the record is voluminous or complicated and the appellant’s thorough treatment of the issues in the brief makes out “an apparent case of error.” Miller v. Pannell, 815 So. 2d 1117, 1119 (Miss. 2002) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting May, 297 So. 2d at 913 ).

2025“This should be done when the record is complicated or of large volume and ‘the case has been thoroughly briefed by the appellant with apt and applicable citation of authority so that the brief makes out an apparent case of error.’” Id. (quoting May v. May, 297 So. 2d 912, 913 (Miss. 1974)).

2026That is the appropriate course of action when the record is voluminous or complicated and the appellant’s thorough treatment of the issues in the brief makes out “an apparent case of error.” Miller v. Pannell, 815 So. 2d 1117, 1119 (Miss. 2002) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting May, 297 So. 2d at 913 ).

2025“This should be done when the record is complicated or of large volume and ‘the case has been thoroughly briefed by the appellant with apt and applicable citation of authority so that the brief makes out an apparent case of error.’” Id. (quoting May v. May, 297 So. 2d 912, 913 (Miss. 1974)).

2017Corp., 458 So.2d 714, 717 (Miss. 1984)). ‘Where the appellant’s brief makes out an apparent case of error ..., we do not regard it as our obligation to look to the record to find a way to avoid the force of the appellants’ argument.” Id. ¶ 10.

2012However, “[w]here the appellant’s brief makes out an apparent case of error, we do not regard it as our obligation to look to the record to find a way to avoid the force of the appellant[’s] argument.” Id. (quoting Dethlefs, 458 So.2d at 717 ).

2005Raleigh v. Armstrong, 165 Miss. 380, 380 , 140 So. 527, 527-28 (1932). (1) When the record is complicated or of large volume, and the case has been thoroughly briefed by appellant with a clear statement of the facts, and with applicable citations of authorities, so that the brief makes out an apparent case of error, we will not regard ourselves as obliged to look to the record or to search through it to find something by which to avoid the force of appellant's presentation, but will accept appellant's brief as confessed and will reverse.

2005Raleigh v. Armstrong, 165 Miss. 380, 380 , 140 So. 527, 527-28 (1932). (1) When the record is complicated or of large volume, and the case has been thoroughly briefed by appellant with a clear statement of the facts, and with applicable citations of authorities, so that the brief makes out an apparent case of error, we will not regard ourselves as obliged to look to the record or to search through it to find something by which to avoid the force of appellant's presentation, but will accept appellant's brief as confessed and will reverse.

2005Selman v. Selman, 722 So.2d 547, 551 (¶ 13) (Miss.1998).

2000Selman v. Selman, 722 So.2d 547 (¶ 13) (Miss.1998) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

2005Nat’l Bank, 304 So.2d 636 (Miss.1974)). ¶ 7.

1977It is contended that the trial court erred (1) in admitting testimony relating to damages resulting from a proposed median strip, and (2) in not excluding testimony of appellees' appraiser on elements of damage. *546 Appellees declined to file a brief in response to that of the Commission, and, under Westinghouse Credit Corporation v. Deposit Guaranty National Bank, 304 So.2d 636 (Miss. 1974), and Burt v. Duckworth, 206 So.2d 850 (Miss. 1958), their failure so to do is tantamount to a confession of error, if appellant's brief makes out an apparent case of error.

2023In City of Durant, the supreme court examined whether a circuit court, “sitting as an appellate court pursuant to [section] 11-51-75, without a jury, may award and determine compensatory damages and attorney’s fees.” City of Durant, 721 So. 2d at 605 (¶29).

2021An appellee’s failure to file a brief may be taken as a confession of error if, inter alia, the appellant’s “brief makes out an apparent case of error”; however, we may affirm if “the record can be conveniently examined and such examination reveals a sound and unmistakable basis or ground upon which the judgment may be safely affirmed.” Patrick v. Patrick, 204 So. 3d 854, 857 (¶10) (Miss.

2021Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Jay Foster PLLC v. McNair, 175 So. 3d 565, 571 (¶15) (Miss.

2015See Jackson v. Walker, 240 So. 2d 606, 606 (Miss. 1970) (Where the appellant filed a brief and no brief was filed by the appellee, this Court concluded that “[s]ince the appellant’s brief in the case at bar makes out an apparent case of error, we do not regard it our obligation to look to the record to find a way to avoid the force of the appellant’s argument.”).

2015See Jackson v. Walker, 240 So.2d 606, 606 (Miss.1970) (Where the appellant filed a brief and no brief was filed by the appellee, this Court concluded that “[s]ince the appellant’s brief in the case at bar makes out an apparent case of error, we do not regard it our obligation to look to the record to find a way to avoid the force of the appellant’s argument.”).

2014Nat’l Bank, 304 So.2d 686, 637 (Miss.1974).

2014Barber v. Barber, 608 So.2d 1338, 1340 (Miss.1992) (internal citations omitted). “[Where] the appellant’s brief makes out an apparent case of error, we [are] not [obligated] to look to the record to find a way to avoid the force of the appellant’s argument.” Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Dep. Guar.

2013Sullivan v. Sullivan, 942 So.2d 305, 307 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (quotation marks omitted).

2013The majority cites Pulliam v. State, 856 So.2d 461, 464-65 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2003), which found that calibration certificates were self-authenticating where they bore the seal of the Mississippi Crime Laboratory and had a signature attesting to the truth of the documents’ contents.

2006Comm’n, 771 So.2d 410, 413 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2000), gives two courses of action when this occurs: We shall, in this court, at our discretion, on default of appellee, take one or the other of the following two courses: (1) When the record is complicated or of large volume, and the case has been thoroughly briefed by appellant with a clear statement of the facts, and with apt and applicable citations of authorities, so that the brief makes out an apparent case of error, we will not regard ourselves as obliged to look to the record or to search through it to find something by which to avoid the