San Francisco Savings Union v. Long

California Supreme Court Apr 5, 1899 No. S. F. No. 1041Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied a motion to recall the remittitur because it conformed to the judgment and was beyond the time for amendment, but granted a motion to amend the record nunc pro tunc.

Issues

Whether the remittitur should be recalled.
Whether the record should be amended nunc pro tunc.

Disposition. Motion to recall denied; motion to amend granted.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The motion to recall remittitur heretofore issued in this case is denied.”

Synopsis

Appeal,—A Remittitur will not be Recalled where it conforms to the judgment as rendered, and it is too late to amend the judgment.

PER CURIAM. The motion to recall remittitur heretofore issued in this case is denied. It conforms to the judgment as rendered, and it is now too late to amend the judgment. The motion to amend our record nunc pro tunc, so as to show that the order made on the first day of November, 1898, was an order directing the amendment of the record by supplying the deficiency specified in. the plaintiff’s suggestion of diminution, is granted.

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