Christensen v. Couey

California Court of Appeal

Christensen v. Couey

136 Cal. App. 268

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 15, 1934

DocketCiv. No. 1290

StatusPublished

This text of 136 Cal. App. 268 (Christensen v. Couey) 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

Christensen v. Couey, 136 Cal. App. 268 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

BARNARD, P. J.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal on the ground that no transcript has been filed. It appears by certificate of the county clerk that notice of request for the preparation of a transcript was filed on January 16, 1933; that no transcript has been filed pursuant to section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure or otherwise; that any proceedings in the trial court for the preparation of a transcript were terminated by order of court on September 1, 1933; that no additional time within which to prepare or serve a draft of a bill of exceptions has been allowed by the superior court or any judge thereof; that no proceedings for the preparation of a bill of exceptions or a transcript are pending in the trial court; and that the time within which to institute any such proceedings has expired. The motion should therefore be granted (Steffey v. Standard Stations, Inc., 131 Cal. App. 202 [20 Pac. (2d) 971]).

The appeal is dismissed.

Marks, J., and Jennings, J., concurred.

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

BARNARD, P. J.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal on the ground that no transcript has been filed. It appears by certificate of the county clerk that notice of request for the preparation of a transcript was filed on January 16, 1933; that no transcript has been filed pursuant to section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure or otherwise; that any proceedings in the trial court for the preparation of a transcript were terminated by order of court on September 1, 1933; that no additional time within which to prepare or serve a draft of a bill of exceptions has been allowed by the superior court or any judge thereof; that no proceedings for the preparation of a bill of exceptions or a transcript are pending in the trial court; and that the time within which to institute any such proceedings has expired. The motion should therefore be granted (Steffey v. Standard Stations, Inc., 131 Cal. App. 202 [20 Pac. (2d) 971]).

The appeal is dismissed.

Marks, J., and Jennings, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 Cal. App. 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christensen-v-couey-calctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack