Plecity v. Keilly

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 12578 · 1940-10-18 · Published · 41 Cal. App. 2d 206 · 106 P.2d 207 · 1940 Cal. App. LEXIS 224

BARBARA PLECITY v. DAVID I. KEILLY

Area: civil
Panel: Marshall F. McComb (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 — McComb

McCOMB, J.

Respondents move to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment on the grounds that the appeal was taken for delay and that the questions on which a decision of the cause depends are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument.

Prior to November 1, 1939, rule V, section 3 of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal (213 Cal. xliii) provided for the dismissal of an appeal or the affirmance of a judgment on the grounds of the present motion. However, September 29, 1939, the judicial council abrogated the section of rule V just mentioned, effective as of November 1, 1939. (Taylor v. Parsons, 39 Cal. App. (2d) 336 [102 Pac. (2d) 1096].)

Therefore, the present motion is not well taken and is denied.

Moore, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Taylor v. Parsons Civ. 12528 · 1940-05-29

Cited by

Tarasco v. Moyers Civ. No. 7358 · 1947-05-07