Court Opinion

ID: 9628814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:32:25.154904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:11.793916
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (specially concurring). I concur in the result. Before an appeal is taken, a party and his attorney must strongly believe that the claimed error is plain, obvious, sharp, unmistakable, apparent and manifest. Emotional resurgence that arises at the loss of a case below should not impel a party or his attorney to appeal. When this occurs without manifest error, memorandum opinions flow from this Court as swiftly as the Mississippi River. This admonition must be observed to warrant consideration of reversal on appeal. The primary duty of an appellate court is to affirm judgments below even though judgments are rendered for wrong reasons. The forty page brief of defendants and the thirty-seven page answer brief of plaintiff are beyond the number allowed by the appellate rule. They show great time and conscientious effort pointlessly because the argument was not based on the simple issues in this case. I recognize that this admonition is of little value. An unnecessary appeal is a common practice that cannot be solved. To meet this challenge requires wisdom, experience and common sense. “Common sense is very uncommon.” I shall repeat this admonition as often as I believe it necessary to educate some members of the profession that “justice on appeal” deserves common sense, not mere rivalry. Carrington, Meador and Rosenberg in Justice on Appeal, at 91, say: As we have seen, hopeless appeals can clog the judicial system and cause an erosion of the process which results in less adequate justice for those appellants who do have substantial questions to raise. Hopeless cases tend to produce unreadable briefs, soporific arguments, and impatient decisions. They are demoralizing to counsel and to judges. While it is perfectly true that they require less time and energy for disposition, this fact itself represents a basic cheapening of the process. Every care must be taken to observe all of the imperatives of appellate justice in dealing with every case having any plausible merit, but this goal can scarcely be achieved without taking some care to manage the tide of hopeless cases. The trial court found: 7. Moorhead suffered an injury in the course of his employment from several days of hard riding up to January 18, 1975, and which aggravated the pre-existing arthritic condition of Moorhead’s knees, causing him to be totally and permanently disabled. 8. On January 17,1975, Moorhead was examined by Dr. Breck, who in a letter to defendant, Industrial Indemnity Company, on January 21, 1975, described the condition of Moorhead’s knees, found Moorhead totally and permanently disabled, and notified that Defendant that Moorhead’s disability was related to his employment with Gray Ranch. The court concluded: 2. Proper notice was given Gray Ranch ... of the accident which aggravated Moorhead’s pre-existing condition and which caused permanent disability on January IS, 1975. ****** 4. Moorhead is totally and permanently disabled by reason of an injury in January, 1975 . . .. [Emphasis added] Defendants did not challenge finding No. 8. Defendants were given due notice of the accident and injury. Written notice to defendants’ insurance carrier by Dr. Breck was sufficient compliance with § 59-10-13.4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 9, pt. 1); Anaya v. Big Three Industries, Inc., 86 N.M. 168, 521 P.2d 130 (Ct.App.1974). There was substantial evidence to support the findings. All testimony and evidence of events that occurred prior to the accident of January 13, 1975 are superfluous.