Allenberg v. Rapken Company, Ltd.

California Court of Appeal

Allenberg v. Rapken Company, Ltd.

286 P. 1059, 105 Cal. App. 142, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 639

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 9, 1930

DocketDocket No. 7188.

StatusPublished

This text of 286 P. 1059 (Allenberg v. Rapken Company, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allenberg v. Rapken Company, Ltd., 286 P. 1059, 105 Cal. App. 142, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 639 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

[1] Motion to affirm judgment on the ground that appellant has failed to point out or set forth in his brief or any supplement thereto, in accordance with the provisions of section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure any part of the record sufficient to justify a reversal or present any issues before this court as to which said appeal has been taken. An examination of appellant's brief reveals the fact that he has set forth in his brief certain portions of the record. It will be presumed that they are the portions that he desires to call to the attention of the court. (Schurman v. Look, 190 Cal. 113 [210 P. 816].)

The motion is denied.

Knight, J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[1] Motion to affirm judgment on the ground that appellant has failed to point out or set forth in his brief or any supplement thereto, in accordance with the provisions of section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure any part of the record sufficient to justify a reversal or present any issues before this court as to which said appeal has been taken. An examination of appellant's brief reveals the fact that he has set forth in his brief certain portions of the record. It will be presumed that they are the portions that he desires to call to the attention of the court. (Schurman v. Look, 190 Cal. 113 [210 P. 816].)

The motion is denied.

Knight, J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 P. 1059, 105 Cal. App. 142, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allenberg-v-rapken-company-ltd-calctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack