Perelli-Minetti v. Lawson

California Supreme Court Oct 4, 1926 No. Docket No. S.F. 12035.Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that in determining compliance with Section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appellate court may consider an appellant's opening brief together with any supplemental briefs filed with the court's permission.

Issues

Whether an appellate court may consider supplemental briefs when determining if an appellant has complied with the record-printing requirements of Section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether the appellants' briefs, when considered collectively, sufficiently illustrate the points presented to satisfy Section 953c.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the appellate court may examine not alone the brief or briefs of said party but in addition thereto all supplemental briefs filed with the permission of court.”

“the provisions of section 953c, Code of Civil Procedure, are satisfied when the briefs and the supplements thereto present for consideration sufficient of the record to enable the appellate tribunal to pass upon the merits of the appeal.”

[447]

THE COURT.

Motion to affirm judgment. Respondent W. H. Lawson moves to affirm the judgment appealed from on the ground that the appellants have failed to print or set forth in their brief, or any supplement thereto, in accordance with the provisions of section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure, any part of the record sufficient to justify a reversal or present any issues on appeal. The appeal was taken by the alternative method and the transcript, under the provisions of section 953a, Code of Civil Procedure, consists of a copy of the judgment-roll and notice of appeal, a reporter’s transcript of the evidence and proceedings at the trial, and a volume containing copies of the various exhibits introduced at the trial.

The opening brief of appellants was filed on June 3, 1926. On June 10, 1926, respondent W. H. Lawson filed his motion to affirm the judgment on the above-mentioned ground, After leave first obtained from this court, the appellants, on June 21, 1926, filed their first supplemental brief. On June 28, 1926, the appellants filed their second supplemental brief with permission of the court.

If respondent’s contention that he is entitled to have his motion to affirm “considered in the light of the state of the record at the time the motion was filed” be meritorius it will be necessary to examine but the opening brief of appellants, to the exclusion of their two supplemental briefs, for the motion was filed immediately following the presentation to this court of appellants’ opening brief. However, should said contention be found without merit the court will be called upon to examine all of appellants’ briefs on file herein to determine whether they satisfy the provisions of section 953c, Code of Civil Procedure. We will, therefore, take up this contention preliminarily in order to determine which briefs of appellants should be examined by the court in passing upon respondent’s motion.

Section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure provides in part: “ . . . In filing briefs in said appeal the parties must, however, print in their briefs, or in a supplement appended thereto, such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the court.

“Extension of time for filing briefs. The court may in all cases, upon good cause shown, extend time to a party to

Perelli-Minetti v. Lawson

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief