Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Joyanta BANERJEE, Defendant and Appellant

PER CURIAM.

Kimberlee J. Hegvik and Nicholas S. Samuelson, Assistant State's Attorneys, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Joyanta Banerjee, Fargo, ND, self-represented, defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

Per Curiam. [¶1] Joyanta Banerjee appeals from two orders denying his motions for a new trial.

[¶2] Under N.D.R.App.P. 28(b), an appellant's brief must contain: a table of contents; a statement regarding jurisdiction; a statement of the issues presented for review; a statement of the case indicating the nature of the case; a statement of the facts relevant to the issues, and a legally supported argument regarding the appellant's issues. We discussed the importance of these requirements in State v. Noack , 2007 ND 82, ¶¶ 7-8, 732 N.W.2d 389. Without the content required by N.D.R.App.P. 28(b), we will decline to review the appellant's alleged errors.

[¶3] Although Banerjee's brief contains headings for a statement of facts, a statement of the case, and law and argument, the lack of content following the headings prevents us from providing meaningful or effective appellate review. Therefore, under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8) we summarily affirm the district court's orders denying Banerjee's motions for a new trial.

[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

State v. Banerjee
(Jan 5, 2023)