Skipitarey v. Fitts

California Court of Appeal

Skipitarey v. Fitts

128 Cal. App. 191

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 14, 1932

DocketCiv. No. 7222

StatusPublished

This text of 128 Cal. App. 191 (Skipitarey v. Fitts) 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

Skipitarey v. Fitts, 128 Cal. App. 191 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

The respondents have made a motion to dismiss the appeal herein on the ground that appellants’ opening brief violates that portion of Rule [192]*192VIII of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal requiring each point to be presented separately 11 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 Pac. 190], Hawkins v. Doolittle, 113 Cal. App. 619 [298 Pac. 862], Withers v. Southern Pac. Co., 101 Cal. App. 373 [281 Pac. 518], and People v. Yaroslawsky, 110 Cal. App. 175 [293 Pac. 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

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

The respondents have made a motion to dismiss the appeal herein on the ground that appellants’ opening brief violates that portion of Rule [192]*192VIII of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal requiring each point to be presented separately 11 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 Pac. 190], Hawkins v. Doolittle, 113 Cal. App. 619 [298 Pac. 862], Withers v. Southern Pac. Co., 101 Cal. App. 373 [281 Pac. 518], and People v. Yaroslawsky, 110 Cal. App. 175 [293 Pac. 815].)

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 Cal. App. 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skipitarey-v-fitts-calctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack