Norton v. Municipal Court

California Court of Appeal

Norton v. Municipal Court

48 P.2d 124, 8 Cal. App. 2d 368, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 667

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 11, 1935

DocketCiv. No. 10485

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 48 P.2d 124 (Norton v. Municipal Court) 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

Norton v. Municipal Court, 48 P.2d 124, 8 Cal. App. 2d 368, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 667 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This petition (see par. XXXVI) asks for a writ of supersedeas directed to proceedings in an action not pending on any appeal to this court. An appellate court has no jurisdiction to grant a writ of supersedeas except in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. (Rosenfeld v. Miller, 216 Cal. 560 [15 Pac. (2d) 161].)

In so far as the prayer of the petition asks for supersedeas in relation to the proceeding in the superior court entitled Norton v. Municipal Court, wherein that court has denied the petitioners’ application for a writ of prohibition, and in which (par. XXXIX herein) it appears that petitioners have appealed to this court, the petition is also without merit. The judgment or order appealed from is self-executing and no process is required to be issued for its enforcement. In such case no supersedeas is allowed. (Hulse v. Davis, 200 Cal. 316 [253 Pac. 136].)

The petition is denied.

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

THE COURT.

This petition (see par. XXXVI) asks for a writ of supersedeas directed to proceedings in an action not pending on any appeal to this court. An appellate court has no jurisdiction to grant a writ of supersedeas except in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. (Rosenfeld v. Miller, 216 Cal. 560 [15 Pac. (2d) 161].)

In so far as the prayer of the petition asks for supersedeas in relation to the proceeding in the superior court entitled Norton v. Municipal Court, wherein that court has denied the petitioners’ application for a writ of prohibition, and in which (par. XXXIX herein) it appears that petitioners have appealed to this court, the petition is also without merit. The judgment or order appealed from is self-executing and no process is required to be issued for its enforcement. In such case no supersedeas is allowed. (Hulse v. Davis, 200 Cal. 316 [253 Pac. 136].)

The petition is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 P.2d 124, 8 Cal. App. 2d 368, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norton-v-municipal-court-calctapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack