Steffey v. Standard Stations, Inc.

20 P.2d 971, 131 Cal. App. 202, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 775
California Court of Appeal·Decided April 13, 1933·No. Docket No. 1253.·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

[1] From the certificate of the county clerk on file herein it appears that notice of appeal was filed on January 21, 1933; that no bill of exceptions has been filed under section 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure; that no transcript has been filed under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure; that no request for a transcript under the provisions of section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed; that no additional time in which to prepare and serve a bill of exceptions has been allowed; that no proceeding for a bill of exceptions or a transcript is pending in the trial court; and that the time within which a record might be prepared under either method has expired. Respondents' motion to dismiss should, therefore, be granted (General Motors etc. Co. v. Holman, 63 Cal.App. 17 [217 P. 1086]; People v. Berkeley Chiropractic College,103 Cal.App. 139 [283 P. 981]; Union Trust Co. of San Diego v.Novotny, 125 Cal.App. 417 [13 P.2d 974]).

The appeal is dismissed.

Marks, J., and Jennings, J., concurred. *Page 203

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

Steffey v. Standard Stations, Inc., 20 P.2d 971, 131 Cal. App. 202, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 775 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

20 P.2d 971 (Steffey v. Standard Stations, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Aaronson v. Aaronson
56 P.2d 1271 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
Morris Plan Co. v. Heinz
38 P.2d 199 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Di Giacomo v. Southern Pacific Co.
36 P.2d 427 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Hunter v. Paxton
28 P.2d 1075 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Christensen v. Couey
28 P.2d 689 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Franceschini v. Solis
23 P.2d 50 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)