gno.law

Frankfort General Ins. Co. v. Cramer

California Supreme Court · L. A. No. 4622. Department One. · 1918-07-23 · Published · 174 P. 33 · 178 Cal. 553 · 1918 Cal. LEXIS 519

FRANKFORT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (A Corporation), Et Al., Respondents, v. A. CRAMER, Appellant

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of San Diego County
Trial judge
C. N. Andrews
Outcome
affirmed — the judgment is affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
Richards (author)

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 — Richards

RICHARDS, J., pro tem.

The record upon this appeal justifies a strict application of the rule laid down in section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is by the alternative method. The typewritten transcript embraces 120 pages. The appellant relies solely upon the point that the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings and judgment of the court. His opening brief contains no supplement such as is required by the rule, nor does it disclose any attempt at compliance with the rule by quotation, reference, or otherwise, directing the court to the portions of the record upon which appellant relies to sustain his point. Although appellant’s attention was expressly directed by respondent’s brief to his utter disregard of the rule, no effort has been made to correct the deficiencies in his brief, either by way of a reply brief or by application for relief to the court. Instead appellant has filed a stipulation submitting the cause upon the briefs on file. Upon the authority of Marcucci v. *554 Vowinckel, 164 Cal. 693, [130 Pac. 430], O'Rourke v. Skellenger, 169 Cal. 270, [146 Pac. 633], and Williams v. Hawkins, 20 Cal. App. 161, [128 Pac. 754], the judgment is affirmed.

Shaw, J., and Sloss, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by