Battson v. Kirkpatrick

California Court of Appeal

Battson v. Kirkpatrick

53 P.2d 762, 11 Cal. App. 2d 283, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 335

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 17, 1936

DocketCiv. No. 10658

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 53 P.2d 762 (Battson v. Kirkpatrick) 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

Battson v. Kirkpatrick, 53 P.2d 762, 11 Cal. App. 2d 283, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 335 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

McCOMB, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of respondent after a trial before a court without a jury.

[284]*284Appellant has failed in his opening brief to present each point separately under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented and the point to be made. (See. 2, Rule VIII, of the District Court of Appeal.) Mr. Justice Conrey in Adams v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 124 Cal. App. 393 [12 Pac. (2d) 464], then Presiding Justice of the District Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, in commenting upon this provision of Bule VIII, supra, accurately states the requirement thus at page 394:

“Such assignment of error should take the form of one or more stated propositions, which, if sustained, would lend reasonable support to appellant’s demand for reversal of the judgment. ”

Appellate courts cannot be expected to assume the task of searching the record for the purpose of discovering errors not pointed out by counsel. It is the duty of counsel to comply with Bule VIII, supra, and by argument and citation of authorities to show that the claimed error exists.

For the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Grail, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.

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

McCOMB, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of respondent after a trial before a court without a jury.

[284]*284Appellant has failed in his opening brief to present each point separately under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented and the point to be made. (See. 2, Rule VIII, of the District Court of Appeal.) Mr. Justice Conrey in Adams v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 124 Cal. App. 393 [12 Pac. (2d) 464], then Presiding Justice of the District Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, in commenting upon this provision of Bule VIII, supra, accurately states the requirement thus at page 394:

“Such assignment of error should take the form of one or more stated propositions, which, if sustained, would lend reasonable support to appellant’s demand for reversal of the judgment. ”

Appellate courts cannot be expected to assume the task of searching the record for the purpose of discovering errors not pointed out by counsel. It is the duty of counsel to comply with Bule VIII, supra, and by argument and citation of authorities to show that the claimed error exists.

For the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Grail, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 P.2d 762, 11 Cal. App. 2d 283, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battson-v-kirkpatrick-calctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack