James H. Bowden and Edward E. Bowden v. City of West Lafayette, Indiana (NFP)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. FILED Oct 17 2008, 9:24 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: FREDERICK MEESSEN Lafayette, Indiana JAMES R. SCHRIER KEVIN J. RILEY REILING TEDER & SCHRIER, LLC Lafayette, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA JAMES H. BOWDEN and EDWARD E. BOWDEN, Appellants-Defendants, vs. CITY OF WEST LAFAYETTE, INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 79A05-0802-CV-66 APPEAL FROM THE TIPPECANOE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Thomas H. Busch, Judge Cause No. 79D02-0611-PL-107 October 17, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION KIRSCH, Judge James H. Bowden and Edward E. Bowden appeal from the trial court s order granting summary judgment in favor of the City of West Lafayette, Indiana. We affirm. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) provides as follows: The argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on, in accordance with Rule 22. Here, Appellants counsel has failed to support his argument with cogent reasoning and citation to authorities in support of his position. The failure to make a cogent argument is equivalent to a failure to file a brief. Bright v. Kuehl, 650 N.E.2d 311, 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). Consequently, the issues presented here on appeal are waived, and the decision of the trial court is affirmed. 1 Affirmed. VAIDIK, J., and CRONE, J., concur. 1 Our decision today is not meant to ignore the serious nature of the procedure involved in this matter. However, we save our discussion for another day when the issues are more properly presented to this court. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.