People v. Berkeley Chiropractic College

California Court of Appeal

People v. Berkeley Chiropractic College

283 P. 981, 103 Cal. App. 139, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 886

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 10, 1930

DocketDocket No. 7187.

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 283 P. 981 (People v. Berkeley Chiropractic College) 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

People v. Berkeley Chiropractic College, 283 P. 981, 103 Cal. App. 139, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 886 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The attorney-general moves to dismiss the appeal herein upon the ground of the failure to file a transcript.

The motion is supported by the certificate of the county clerk and the facts stated therein are not contradicted. It appears therefrom that the only step taken by appellant in furtherance of the appeal was to file a notice of appeal on March 5, 1929. There has been no bill of exceptions proposed or settled as provided in section 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor was any request filed for the preparation of a transcript in accordance with the provisions of section 953a of said code. No extensions of time have been granted to prepare the record on appeal under either method above mentioned, and the statutory period within which such a record may be prepared and filed has long since expired. It follows, therefore, that the appeal must be dismissed. (General Motors etc. Corp. v. Holman, 63 Cal. App. 17 [217 Pac. 1086]; Catania v, Guccione, *140 60 Cal. App. 717 [214 Pac. 495]; Rule V of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal.) It is so ordered.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on February 8, 1930.

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

THE COURT.

The attorney-general moves to dismiss the appeal herein upon the ground of the failure to file a transcript.

The motion is supported by the certificate of the county clerk and the facts stated therein are not contradicted. It appears therefrom that the only step taken by appellant in furtherance of the appeal was to file a notice of appeal on March 5, 1929. There has been no bill of exceptions proposed or settled as provided in section 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor was any request filed for the preparation of a transcript in accordance with the provisions of section 953a of said code. No extensions of time have been granted to prepare the record on appeal under either method above mentioned, and the statutory period within which such a record may be prepared and filed has long since expired. It follows, therefore, that the appeal must be dismissed. (General Motors etc. Corp. v. Holman, 63 Cal. App. 17 [217 Pac. 1086]; Catania v, Guccione, *140 60 Cal. App. 717 [214 Pac. 495]; Rule V of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal.) It is so ordered.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on February 8, 1930.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 P. 981, 103 Cal. App. 139, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-berkeley-chiropractic-college-calctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack