McClintock v. Robinson

California Court of Appeal Jul 16, 1936 No. Civ. No. 1638Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied a motion to dismiss an appeal for failure to timely file an opening brief because the appellant filed the brief prior to the hearing on the motion.

Issues

Whether an appeal should be dismissed when an opening brief is filed after the deadline but before the hearing on a motion to dismiss.

Disposition. Motion denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“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.”

15 Cal.App.2d 511 (1936) EARL McCLINTOCK, Respondent,

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.

McClintock v. Robinson

AI Brief

L. E. Dadmun for Respondent.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief