Righetti v. Monroe, Lyon & Miller, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Righetti v. Monroe, Lyon & Miller, Inc.

289 P. 650, 106 Cal. App. 346, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 521

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 11, 1930

DocketDocket No. 7364.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 289 P. 650 (Righetti v. Monroe, Lyon & Miller, Inc.) 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

Righetti v. Monroe, Lyon & Miller, Inc., 289 P. 650, 106 Cal. App. 346, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

STURTEVANT, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The motion is based on the ground that the appellant did not file its points and authorities within the time allowed by law. The transcript was filed February 26, 1930. Notice of the presentation of this motion was served April 7, 1930. The notice was accompanied with an affidavit of the attorney for the respondent. In that affidavit it is stated that no order has been made and that no stipulation has been made extending the time to file said points and authorities. The motion was noticed for presentation on May 12, 1930, and on that day it was presented. Prior to that time, to wit, on May 3, 1930, the points and authori *347 ties were printed and filed and were on file when the motion was presented. The appellant’s attorney has served, filed and presented an affidavit from which it appears that he was most diligently employed during the period of his apparent delay; that he did not neglect this particular piece of work; but that he was overworked and could not get the points and authorities on file at an earlier date. Furthermore, the affidavit shows that the appeal has been taken and presented in good faith and that the delay has not appreciably postponed the hearing of the appeal on its merits. We think the motion should be denied and it is so ordered.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.

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

STURTEVANT, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The motion is based on the ground that the appellant did not file its points and authorities within the time allowed by law. The transcript was filed February 26, 1930. Notice of the presentation of this motion was served April 7, 1930. The notice was accompanied with an affidavit of the attorney for the respondent. In that affidavit it is stated that no order has been made and that no stipulation has been made extending the time to file said points and authorities. The motion was noticed for presentation on May 12, 1930, and on that day it was presented. Prior to that time, to wit, on May 3, 1930, the points and authori *347 ties were printed and filed and were on file when the motion was presented. The appellant’s attorney has served, filed and presented an affidavit from which it appears that he was most diligently employed during the period of his apparent delay; that he did not neglect this particular piece of work; but that he was overworked and could not get the points and authorities on file at an earlier date. Furthermore, the affidavit shows that the appeal has been taken and presented in good faith and that the delay has not appreciably postponed the hearing of the appeal on its merits. We think the motion should be denied and it is so ordered.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 P. 650, 106 Cal. App. 346, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/righetti-v-monroe-lyon-miller-inc-calctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack