Gavin v. Gavin

California Supreme Court

Gavin v. Gavin

28 P. 567, 92 Cal. 292, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 1209

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 14, 1891

DocketNo. 13546

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 28 P. 567 (Gavin v. Gavin) 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

Gavin v. Gavin, 28 P. 567, 92 Cal. 292, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 1209 (Cal. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

McFarland, J.

The brief of counsel for appellant is substantially a mere recapitulation of the general assignments of error as they appear in the bill of exceptions. It contains frequent general statements, such as that “ the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision,” that “ the court erred ” in making certain findings of fact, that the “ court erred in finding certain conclusions of law,” that the “ court erred in making the decree,” [293]*293etc. But no reasons are given why the court erred, no views are presented as to the questions sought to be raised, and no authorities cited. Under these circumstances, we can hardly be expected to do the work of counsel, and elaborately hunt up and consider what counsel has not argued. Upon a cursory view of the record, we have noticed no material error for which the judgment should be reversed.

The judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.

De Haven, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

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

McFarland, J.

The brief of counsel for appellant is substantially a mere recapitulation of the general assignments of error as they appear in the bill of exceptions. It contains frequent general statements, such as that “ the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision,” that “ the court erred ” in making certain findings of fact, that the “ court erred in finding certain conclusions of law,” that the “ court erred in making the decree,” [293]*293etc. But no reasons are given why the court erred, no views are presented as to the questions sought to be raised, and no authorities cited. Under these circumstances, we can hardly be expected to do the work of counsel, and elaborately hunt up and consider what counsel has not argued. Upon a cursory view of the record, we have noticed no material error for which the judgment should be reversed.

The judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.

De Haven, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 P. 567, 92 Cal. 292, 1891 Cal. LEXIS 1209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gavin-v-gavin-cal-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack