Kientz v. Harris

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 8417 · 1953-05-15 · Published · 117 Cal. App. 2d 810 · 256 P.2d 995 · 1953 Cal. App. LEXIS 1886

VICTOR VINCENT KIENTZ v. ARTHUR O'DELL HARRIS

Area: civil
Panel: Van Dyke (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 — Dyke

VAN DYKE, P. J.

In Kientz v. Harris, 3 Civil No. 8418 (ante, p. 787 [257 P.2d 41]) we held that upon the facts stated the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court to entertain the same. Motion to dismiss this appeal has been made upon the same ground. The facts in each case as to jurisdiction are identical. There is no need, therefore, to file an extended opinion herein.

Upon the authority of that case, the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal herein is dismissed.

Peek, J., and Sehottky, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Kientz v. Harris Civ. 8418 · 1953-05-15

Cited by

Smith v. Big Horn Mining Co. Civ. No. 5982 · 1958-11-24