Anderson v. Recorder's Court

California Court of Appeal

Anderson v. Recorder's Court

171 P. 812, 36 Cal. App. 123, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 506

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 4, 1918

DocketCiv. No. 2421.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 171 P. 812 (Anderson v. Recorder's Court) 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

Anderson v. Recorder's Court, 171 P. 812, 36 Cal. App. 123, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 506 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered on writ of certiorari. The only record on file is in the form of a typewritten transcript. Appellant has not complied with section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that upon such a record the parties must "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." The brief for appellant is absolutely deficient, in that no part of the record has been printed therein.

On the authority of Stewart v. Andrews, 35 Cal.App. 230, [169 P. 397]; Jones v. American Potash Co., 35 Cal.App. 128, [169 P. 397]; Hepler v. Wright, 35 Cal.App. 567, [170 P. 667], and other cases cited in those decisions, the judgment is affirmed.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on April 4, 1918. *Page 124

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

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered on writ of certiorari. The only record on file is in the form of a typewritten transcript. Appellant has not complied with section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that upon such a record the parties must "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." The brief for appellant is absolutely deficient, in that no part of the record has been printed therein.

On the authority of Stewart v. Andrews, 35 Cal.App. 230, [169 P. 397]; Jones v. American Potash Co., 35 Cal.App. 128, [169 P. 397]; Hepler v. Wright, 35 Cal.App. 567, [170 P. 667], and other cases cited in those decisions, the judgment is affirmed.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on April 4, 1918. *Page 124

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 P. 812, 36 Cal. App. 123, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-recorders-court-calctapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack