Home/California Court of Appeal/Kientz v. Harris

Kientz v. Harris

256 P.2d 995, 117 Cal. App. 2d 810, 1953 Cal. App. LEXIS 1886
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 15, 1953
DocketCiv. No. 8417
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 P.2d 995 (Kientz v. Harris) 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
Kientz v. Harris, 256 P.2d 995, 117 Cal. App. 2d 810, 1953 Cal. App. LEXIS 1886 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953).

Opinion

VAN DYKE, P. J.

In Kientz v. Harris, 3 Civil No. 8418 (ante, p. 787 [257 P.2d 41]) we held that upon the facts stated the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court to entertain the same. Motion to dismiss this appeal has been made upon the same ground. The facts in each case as to jurisdiction are identical. There is no need, therefore, to file an extended opinion herein.

Upon the authority of that case, the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal herein is dismissed.

Peek, J., and Sehottky, J., concurred.

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

Related

Smith v. Big Horn Mining Co.
332 P.2d 191 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
256 P.2d 995, 117 Cal. App. 2d 810, 1953 Cal. App. LEXIS 1886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kientz-v-harris-calctapp-1953.