Frankfort General Ins. Co. v. Cramer

California Supreme Court

Frankfort General Ins. Co. v. Cramer

174 P. 33, 178 Cal. 553, 1918 Cal. LEXIS 519

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 23, 1918

DocketL. A. No. 4622. Department One.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 174 P. 33 (Frankfort General Ins. Co. v. Cramer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frankfort General Ins. Co. v. Cramer, 174 P. 33, 178 Cal. 553, 1918 Cal. LEXIS 519 (Cal. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDS, J., pro tem.

The record upon this appeal justifies a strict application of the rule laid down in section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is by the alternative method. The typewritten transcript embraces 120 pages. The appellant relies solely upon the point that the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings and judgment of the court. His opening brief contains no supplement such as is required by the rule, nor does it disclose any attempt at compliance with the rule by quotation, reference, or otherwise, directing the court to the portions of the record upon which appellant relies to sustain his point. Although appellant’s attention was expressly directed by respondent’s brief to his utter disregard of the rule, no effort has been made to correct the deficiencies in his brief, either by way of a reply brief or by application for relief to the court. Instead appellant has filed a stipulation submitting the cause upon the briefs on file. Upon the authority of Marcucci v.

*554 Vowinckel, 164 Cal. 693, [130 Pac. 430], O'Rourke v. Skellenger, 169 Cal. 270, [146 Pac. 633], and Williams v. Hawkins, 20 Cal. App. 161, [128 Pac. 754], the judgment is affirmed.

Shaw, J., and Sloss, J., concurred.

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

RICHARDS, J., pro tem.

The record upon this appeal justifies a strict application of the rule laid down in section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is by the alternative method. The typewritten transcript embraces 120 pages. The appellant relies solely upon the point that the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings and judgment of the court. His opening brief contains no supplement such as is required by the rule, nor does it disclose any attempt at compliance with the rule by quotation, reference, or otherwise, directing the court to the portions of the record upon which appellant relies to sustain his point. Although appellant’s attention was expressly directed by respondent’s brief to his utter disregard of the rule, no effort has been made to correct the deficiencies in his brief, either by way of a reply brief or by application for relief to the court. Instead appellant has filed a stipulation submitting the cause upon the briefs on file. Upon the authority of Marcucci v.

*554 Vowinckel, 164 Cal. 693, [130 Pac. 430], O'Rourke v. Skellenger, 169 Cal. 270, [146 Pac. 633], and Williams v. Hawkins, 20 Cal. App. 161, [128 Pac. 754], the judgment is affirmed.

Shaw, J., and Sloss, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 P. 33, 178 Cal. 553, 1918 Cal. LEXIS 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frankfort-general-ins-co-v-cramer-cal-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack