Hickinbotham v. Monroe

California Supreme Court Oct 15, 1865Published

Before: Sawyer

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment because the appellant failed to file briefs or points as required by rule seventeen.

Issues

Whether a judgment should be affirmed when the appellant fails to file briefs or points as required by court rules.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The time for filing briefs having expired three months ago, and none having been filed, and there being no points on file,, as required by rule seventeen, the judgment is affirmed”

Synopsis

Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, San Joaquin County.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

By the Court,

Sawyer, J. The time for filing briefs having expired three months ago, and none having been filed, and there being no points on file,, as required by rule seventeen, the judgment is affirmed, on the authority of Edmondson v. Alameda County, 24 Cal, 349, and Hutton v. Reed, 25 Cal. 488. A like disposition will be made of all cases similarly situated, when taken up for decision in their proper order.

More from California Supreme Court

People v. Wende (1979)
People v. Watson (1956)
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
People v. Kelly (2006)
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
People v. Lewis (2021)
In Re Estrada (1965)
Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
People v. Marsden (1970)

Related research