Anglo-California T. Co. v. Oakland Rys.
216 P. 578, 191 Cal. 387
Opinions
[1] The motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the attorney who signed the notice of appeal and prepared the transcript was not the attorney of record and that there had been no substitution of attorneys is granted on the authority of Harrigan v. Bolte, 67 Cal. xxi [8 P. 184].
On August 3, 1923, the supreme court modified the foregoing order as follows:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Anglo-California T. Co. v. Oakland Rys., 216 P. 578, 191 Cal. 387 (Cal. 1923).
216 P. 578 (Anglo-California T. Co. v. Oakland Rys.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Carrara v. Carrara
262 P.2d 591 (California Court of Appeal, 1953)
Youlian v. Williams
178 P.2d 756 (California Supreme Court, 1947)
Jackson v. Jackson
163 P.2d 780 (California Court of Appeal, 1945)
Echlin v. Superior Court
90 P.2d 63 (California Supreme Court, 1939)
Weare v. Superior Court
273 P. 870 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Starkweather v. Eddy
235 P. 734 (California Supreme Court, 1925)
Anglo-California Trust Co. v. Oakland Railways
225 P. 452 (California Supreme Court, 1924)