Bonner v. Quackenbush
Synopsis
Review of Evidence.—The Court will not review the evidence if, in the bill of exceptions, there is no specification of the particulars in which the evidence is alleged to be insufficient to justify the findings and decision.
Abandoning an Alleged Eebob.—If an alleged error of law, specified in the bill of exceptions, is not relied on in an argument nor in the brief of counsel, the Court will infer that it has been abandoned as untenable.
By the Court: In the bill of exceptions there is no specification of the [181]particulars in which the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings and decision of the court. We cannot, therefore, review the evidence nor inquire whether it supports the findings; and assuming the findings to be correct, they fully support the judgment. The only alleged error in law specified in the bill of exceptions has not been relied upon in argument here, nor in the brief of counsel, and we infer has been abandoned as untenable.
Judgment affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.
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)