Lisle v. Ragle

California Court of Appeal

Lisle v. Ragle

52 P.2d 608, 10 Cal. App. 2d 758, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1503

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 21, 1935

DocketCiv. 1754

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 52 P.2d 608 (Lisle v. Ragle) 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

Lisle v. Ragle, 52 P.2d 608, 10 Cal. App. 2d 758, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1503 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

JENNINGS, J.

Respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal herein and to affirm the judgment was made on the single ground that appellant had failed to file in this court points and authorities within the time prescribed by section 4 of rule I of the rules of this court. At the time notice of the motion for dismissal was given the motion was well taken as no brief in support of the appeal was then on file. However, prior to the time specified in the notice as the date on which the motion would be presented appellant’s points and authorities were filed.

Rule Y of the rules of this court provides that if points and authorities, though not filed within the time prescribed, are filed at the time notice of motion for dismissal is given, that fact shall be sufficient answer to the motion. This rule has been extended to include those cases wherein an appellant’s opening brief is on file at the time the motion for dismissal of an appeal is heard, although such brief had not been filed *759 at the time notice of the motion was given. (Bighetti v. Monroe, Lyon & Miller, Inc., 106 Cal. App. 346 [289 Pac. 650]; Fishman v. Silva-, 108 Cal. App. 121 [291 Pac. 430]; Tyner v. Axt, 111 Cal. App. 187 [295 Pac. 97]; Toth v. Metropolitan- Life Ins. Go., 113 Cal. App. 55 [297 Pac. 564] ; Snodgrass v. Hand, 125 Cal. App. 265 [13 Pac. (2d) 769] ; Smith v. Taecker, 127 Cal. App. 78 [15 Pac. (2d) 193]; North v. Evans, 136 Cal. App. 434 [28 Pac. (2d) 938].)

The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore denied.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

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

JENNINGS, J.

Respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal herein and to affirm the judgment was made on the single ground that appellant had failed to file in this court points and authorities within the time prescribed by section 4 of rule I of the rules of this court. At the time notice of the motion for dismissal was given the motion was well taken as no brief in support of the appeal was then on file. However, prior to the time specified in the notice as the date on which the motion would be presented appellant’s points and authorities were filed.

Rule Y of the rules of this court provides that if points and authorities, though not filed within the time prescribed, are filed at the time notice of motion for dismissal is given, that fact shall be sufficient answer to the motion. This rule has been extended to include those cases wherein an appellant’s opening brief is on file at the time the motion for dismissal of an appeal is heard, although such brief had not been filed *759 at the time notice of the motion was given. (Bighetti v. Monroe, Lyon & Miller, Inc., 106 Cal. App. 346 [289 Pac. 650]; Fishman v. Silva-, 108 Cal. App. 121 [291 Pac. 430]; Tyner v. Axt, 111 Cal. App. 187 [295 Pac. 97]; Toth v. Metropolitan- Life Ins. Go., 113 Cal. App. 55 [297 Pac. 564] ; Snodgrass v. Hand, 125 Cal. App. 265 [13 Pac. (2d) 769] ; Smith v. Taecker, 127 Cal. App. 78 [15 Pac. (2d) 193]; North v. Evans, 136 Cal. App. 434 [28 Pac. (2d) 938].)

The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore denied.

Barnard, P. J., and Marks, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 P.2d 608, 10 Cal. App. 2d 758, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 1503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lisle-v-ragle-calctapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack