Home/California Court of Appeal/Benjamin Franklin B. I. Corp. v. Schmidt

Benjamin Franklin B. I. Corp. v. Schmidt

22 P.2d 26, 132 Cal. App. 39, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 240
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 16, 1933
DocketDocket No. 8881.
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 22 P.2d 26 (Benjamin Franklin B. I. Corp. v. Schmidt) 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
Benjamin Franklin B. I. Corp. v. Schmidt, 22 P.2d 26, 132 Cal. App. 39, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 240 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

[1] The writ of review was improperly issued in this proceeding. After return made to the writ our attention is first called in the briefs to the fact that the petition for the writ was unverified. The writ of review can be issued only upon a verified petition. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1069.)

[2] As we have so often said under similar circumstances, respondent judge is not a proper party to the proceeding.

The writ and the accompanying restraining order are set aside and the proceeding is dismissed.

Stephens, J., and Parker, J., pro tem., concurred.

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

Related

United Farm Workers of America v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board
694 P.2d 138 (California Supreme Court, 1985)
City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper
534 P.2d 403 (California Supreme Court, 1975)
Franchise Tax Board v. Municipal Court
45 Cal. App. 3d 377 (California Court of Appeal, 1975)
Neblett v. Superior Court
194 P.2d 22 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 P.2d 26, 132 Cal. App. 39, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benjamin-franklin-b-i-corp-v-schmidt-calctapp-1933.