gno.law

McClintock v. Robinson

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 1638 · 1936-07-16 · Published · 15 Cal. App. 2d 511 · 59 P.2d 636

Area
civil

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

15 Cal.App.2d 511 (1936) EARL McCLINTOCK, Respondent, v. LOUIS ROBINSON, Appellant.

Civ. No. 1638. California Court of Appeals. Fourth Appellate District.

July 16, 1936. Forgy, Reinhaus & Forgy for Appellant.

L. E. Dadmun for Respondent.

Turrentine, J., pro tem.

[1] Respondent filed his motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant had not filed his opening brief within the time provided by law. Subsequent to the filing of the motion, but before the hearing thereof, appellant had served and filed his opening brief.

On the authority of Graybiel v. Consolidated Associations, Ltd., 14 Cal.App.2d 547 [58 PaCal.2d 665], the motion is denied.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus