Montalbano v. Rainbow Gardens, Ltd.

California Court of Appeal

Montalbano v. Rainbow Gardens, Ltd.

33 P.2d 844, 139 Cal. App. 379, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 514

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 21, 1934

DocketCiv. No. 9474

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 P.2d 844 (Montalbano v. Rainbow Gardens, Ltd.) 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

Montalbano v. Rainbow Gardens, Ltd., 33 P.2d 844, 139 Cal. App. 379, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 514 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Appellant Rainbow Gardens, Ltd., having filed its brief on appeal from the judgment, respondent has presented his motion, under section 3 of Rule Y, to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment.

Respondent contends that the grounds of appeal are so unsubstantial as not to require further argument. But appellant has presented for discussion a question which should not be settled without further consideration. In appellant’s statement of questions involved, it asks for decision upon its claim that under the given statement of facts the special police officer, who committed the assault, was not a servant of the proprietor of the dance-hall acting within the scope of his employment as such servant. The authorities cited by appellant, and particularly the case of [380]*380Maggi v. Pompa, 105 Cal. App. 496 [287 Pac. 982], give to this question an importance which, ño doubt, will be recognized in respondent’s brief.

The motion to dismiss or affirm is denied.

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

THE COURT.

Appellant Rainbow Gardens, Ltd., having filed its brief on appeal from the judgment, respondent has presented his motion, under section 3 of Rule Y, to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment.

Respondent contends that the grounds of appeal are so unsubstantial as not to require further argument. But appellant has presented for discussion a question which should not be settled without further consideration. In appellant’s statement of questions involved, it asks for decision upon its claim that under the given statement of facts the special police officer, who committed the assault, was not a servant of the proprietor of the dance-hall acting within the scope of his employment as such servant. The authorities cited by appellant, and particularly the case of [380]*380Maggi v. Pompa, 105 Cal. App. 496 [287 Pac. 982], give to this question an importance which, ño doubt, will be recognized in respondent’s brief.

The motion to dismiss or affirm is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 P.2d 844, 139 Cal. App. 379, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montalbano-v-rainbow-gardens-ltd-calctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack