Skipitarey v. Fitts

17 P.2d 159, 128 Cal. App. 191, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 229
California Court of Appeal·Decided December 14, 1932·No. Docket No. 7222.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[1] The respondents have made a motion to dismiss the appeal herein on the ground that appellants' opening brief violates that portion of Rule *Page 192 VIII of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal requiring each point to be presented separately "under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented or the point to be made". There are but two headings or titles in the brief, the one "Statement of the Case" and the other "Argument". It is manifest that respondents' motion is well founded. (See Barnes v. Cocke, 99 Cal.App. 700 [279 P. 190], Hawkins v. Doolittle, 113 Cal.App. 619 [298 P. 862],Withers v. Southern Pac. Co., 101 Cal.App. 373 [281 P. 518], and People v. Yaroslawsky, 110 Cal.App. 175 [293 P. 815].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Works, P.J., and Craig, J., concurred.

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

Skipitarey v. Fitts, 17 P.2d 159, 128 Cal. App. 191, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 229 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

17 P.2d 159 (Skipitarey v. Fitts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cunnyngham v. Mason-Mcduffie Co., Inc.
22 P.2d 515 (California Supreme Court, 1933)
Currier v. Oakland Association
21 P.2d 462 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Herlihy v. Ward
18 P.2d 992 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)