Court Opinion

ID: 9684967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:19:59.321296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:01.406363
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On motion for rehearing, Tenngas-eo contends that we erred in stating that the only rebuttal testimony that was missing was that of Fischer’s witnesses. Our opinion doesn’t say that but is open to that interpretation. Also missing from the statement of facts is the rebuttal testimony of Tenngasco’s witness Steven Kennedy in addition to any objections and rulings relating to the testimony of these three witnesses (Clower, Reagan and Kennedy) and any bills of exception thereon and final arguments of counsel.
Kennedy’s testimony in no way related to the issue of value and hence is not related to any issue on appeal. The reason the objections and rulings and bills of exception to these three witnesses is missing is because none were made. Finally, since no point on appeal relates to jury argument, the fact that they were not transcribed is irrelevant to this appeal.
For these reasons, we adhere to our original disposition and overrule both appellant’s and appellee’s motions for rehearing.