Lawler v. Bannerman

California Court of Appeal

Lawler v. Bannerman

8 Cal. App. 3d 893, 87 Cal. Rptr. 756, 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 2104

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 17, 1970

DocketCiv. 33571

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 8 Cal. App. 3d 893 (Lawler v. Bannerman) 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

Lawler v. Bannerman, 8 Cal. App. 3d 893, 87 Cal. Rptr. 756, 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 2104 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

FLEMING, J.

The judgment appealed from was entered by the trial court on the stipulation of counsel for both parties, which stipulation had been made a matter of record in the trial court’s minutes. Appellant did not seek relief from the stipulation or relief from the judgment in the trial court but filed an appeal. Since a judgment entered pursuant to stipulation is not appealable (Reed v. Murphy, 196 Cal. 395 [238 P. 78]), and since we cannot set aside a stipulation on appeal when relief has not been sought from the trial court (Pawling v. Malley, 107 Cal.App.2d 652 [237 P.2d 663]), the appealed must be dismissed. Moreover, the appeal is frivolous, not only because it is one from a stipulated judgment, but because the issues raised by appellant are without merit. This appeal clearly appears to have been taken solely for purposes of delay. Code of Civil Procedure section 907 reads: “When it appears to the reviewing court that the appeal was frivolous or taken solely for delay, it may add to the costs on appeal such damages as may be just.” (See also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 26(a).)

The appeal is dismissed and added costs of $500 are hereby imposed on appellant.

Roth, P. J., and Herndon, J., concurred.

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

Opinion

FLEMING, J.

The judgment appealed from was entered by the trial court on the stipulation of counsel for both parties, which stipulation had been made a matter of record in the trial court’s minutes. Appellant did not seek relief from the stipulation or relief from the judgment in the trial court but filed an appeal. Since a judgment entered pursuant to stipulation is not appealable (Reed v. Murphy, 196 Cal. 395 [238 P. 78]), and since we cannot set aside a stipulation on appeal when relief has not been sought from the trial court (Pawling v. Malley, 107 Cal.App.2d 652 [237 P.2d 663]), the appealed must be dismissed. Moreover, the appeal is frivolous, not only because it is one from a stipulated judgment, but because the issues raised by appellant are without merit. This appeal clearly appears to have been taken solely for purposes of delay. Code of Civil Procedure section 907 reads: “When it appears to the reviewing court that the appeal was frivolous or taken solely for delay, it may add to the costs on appeal such damages as may be just.” (See also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 26(a).)

The appeal is dismissed and added costs of $500 are hereby imposed on appellant.

Roth, P. J., and Herndon, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Cal. App. 3d 893, 87 Cal. Rptr. 756, 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 2104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawler-v-bannerman-calctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack