Home/California Court of Appeal/Smith v. Rothschild

Smith v. Rothschild

34 P.2d 1050, 140 Cal. App. 4, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 491
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJuly 19, 1934
DocketCiv. No. 9427
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 P.2d 1050 (Smith v. Rothschild) 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
Smith v. Rothschild, 34 P.2d 1050, 140 Cal. App. 4, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 491 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Opinion

NOURSE, P. J.

The plaintiffs have moved to dismiss or affirm under the rule upon the grounds that the appeal is frivolous and presents grounds so unsubstantial as not to require further argument. The motion was accompanied by a typewritten brief fully arguing the merits of the appeal. When this motion is made for the purpose of advancing the hearing of an appeal on the merits, or to avoid preparation of a brief under the rules, it should be denied. The motion in this ease is of that character.

Motion denied.

Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

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

Related

Lowe v. City of San Diego
36 P.2d 658 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 P.2d 1050, 140 Cal. App. 4, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-rothschild-calctapp-1934.