Kessel v. Rutherford

[Go to Documents]Filed May 1, 2007[Download as WordPerfect]IN THE SUPREME COURTSTATE OF NORTH DAKOTA2007 ND 55

Dean Kessel, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Robert Rutherford, Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff, and Appellant
v.
Jamie Leingang, Third Party Defendant

No. 20060267

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Sonna M. Anderson, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Richard B. Baer (argued), Richard B. Baer, P.C., 1110 College Dr., Ste. 211, Bismarck, ND 58501-1225, for plaintiff and appellee.
Robert Rutherford (on brief), pro se, 2521 Circle Drive, Jamestown, ND 58401, defendant, third party plaintiff and appellant.

Kessel v. Rutherford
No. 20060267

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Robert Rutherford appeals from a district court judgment entered upon a jury verdict in a personal injury action. Rutherford argues the district court abused its discretion by not concisely stating in a written memorandum its reasons for denying his N.D.R.Civ.P. 59 motion, the judgment award was excessive, and he was denied a fair trial. Rutherford failed to file an appendix conforming with N.D.R.App.P. 30. Rutherford also failed to provide a transcript as required under N.D.R.App.P. 10. "If the record on appeal does not allow a meaningful and intelligent review of the alleged error, we decline to review it." State v. Stockert, 2004 ND 146, ¶ 13, 684 N.W.2d 605; see also Flattum-Riemers v. Flattum-Riemers, 2003 ND 70, ¶ 8, 660 N.W.2d 558; Wagner v. Squibb, 2003 ND 18, ¶ 5, 656 N.W.2d 674; Sabot v. Fargo Women's Health Org., Inc., 500 N.W.2d 889, 892 (N.D. 1993). We summarily affirm the district court judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1).

[¶2] Rutherford included materials in his appendix that were not in the record. Rule 30(a), N.D.R.App.P., provides: "Only items in the record may be included in the appendix. The author's signature on the brief, under Rule 32, certifies compliance with this rule." Rule 13, N.D.R.App.P., provides: "The supreme court may take appropriate action against any person failing to perform an act required by rule or court order." We direct costs on appeal be doubled for Rutherford's failure to comply with these rules. See Estate of Wieland, 1998 ND 130, ¶ 22 n.3, 581 N.W.2d 140.

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Dale V. Sandstrom
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Mary Muehlen Maring