Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03238/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03238-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marilyn Frisbie
Appellant
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MARILYN FRISBIE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APR 2 3 1991 

ROBER'r L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. No. 90-3238 

WAL-MART STORES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

(D. C. No. 89-2082-S) 

( D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P • 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Ms. Frisbie, who was injured in a slip and fall accident, 

appeals an adverse jury verdict. 

* be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3238 Document: 010110034282 Date Filed: 04/23/1991 Page: 1 
\ Ms. Frisbie appeals prose. Apparently she was represented 

by counsel in the district court. Ms. Frisbie relates the facts 

as she saw them, e.g., "I took one step to proceed to my car and I 

fell on my back." She feels the Wal-Mart employees should "have 

had their rain mats down." Ms. Frisbie's entire brief can best be 

described as a jury argument. She feels very strongly that when 

"a person gets hurt on someone's property they are responsible for 

that person. That's why property owners have insurance." Ms. 

Frisbie wants "justice to be done." 

Ms. Frisbie misperceives the function of this court. She is 

not entitled to retry her case. Ms. Frisbie had a trial and her 

case was decided by a jury. Federal law prohibits us from 

overturning the jury verdict unless she can show us an error in 

law was made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. Ms. Frisbie cites no error in 

the law or evidence. She simply thinks the jury decision was 

wrong. 

Ms. Frisbie filed no transcript in this court. Ms. Frisbie 

has pointed out no errors. Her brief fails to comport with the 

rules of this court. Her complaints are insufficient, on their 

face, to warrant a reversal of the jury verdict. 

Wal-Mart is aggrieved and argues that Ms. Frisbie has caused 

it to incur time and expense. Wal-Mart argues this appeal is 

frivolous. We agree. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3238 Document: 010110034282 Date Filed: 04/23/1991 Page: 2 
Ms. Frisbie, who is undoubtedly sincere in her beliefs, must 

realize that if she wishes to indulge her desire to continue her 

litigation she has certain obligations. One of these obligations 

is not to cause her opponent expense for a frivolous appeal. 

Those who dance must pay the fiddler. 

As the appeal is frivolous and as appellee filed but a tenpage brief, we will order sanctions be imposed against Ms. Frisbie 

in the amount of $100 to be paid to Appellee. 

The judgment of the district court is in all respects 

AFFIRMED. The district court shall enter a judgment for sanctions 

in the amount of $100 and costs against Appellant and in favor of 

Appellee. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3238 Document: 010110034282 Date Filed: 04/23/1991 Page: 3