Smith v. Rothschild
34 P.2d 1050, 140 Cal. App. 4, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 491
Opinion
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
Smith v. Rothschild, 34 P.2d 1050, 140 Cal. App. 4, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 491 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).
34 P.2d 1050 (Smith v. Rothschild) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lowe v. City of San Diego
36 P.2d 658 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)