Ure v. Maggio Bros. Co., Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Ure v. Maggio Bros. Co., Inc.

71 P.2d 598, 22 Cal. App. 2d 536, 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 163

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 15, 1937

DocketCiv. 2105

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 71 P.2d 598 (Ure v. Maggio Bros. Co., Inc.) 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

Ure v. Maggio Bros. Co., Inc., 71 P.2d 598, 22 Cal. App. 2d 536, 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 163 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

JENNINGS, Acting P. J.

This action was instituted by plaintiff, a woman 79 years of age, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of her adult daughter. Trial of the action resulted in the rendition of a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $10,881.23, of which the sum of $10,000 was awarded to plaintiff as general damages. Thereafter, the defendants presented a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and defendants thereupon perfected an appeal from the judgment and the order denying their motion for a new trial. The opening brief of appellants was duly filed and respondent now moves this court to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment under the provisions of subdivision 3 of rule V of the Rules of this Court on the grounds that the appeal has been taken only for delay and *537 that the question involved in the appeal is so unsubstantial as to require no further argument.

Examination of appellants’ opening brief discloses that it is there contended that the trial court’s findings are lacking in evidentiary support and that the amount awarded by way of general damages is excessive. Respondent’s memorandum of points and authorities submitted in support of the motion for dismissal or affirmance contains numerous references to the transcript on appeal. Inspection of appellants’ opening brief fails to produce a conviction that the questions involved in the appeal are so unsubstantial as to demand immediate affirmance of the judgment without consideration of the record. In accordance, therefore, with the settled policy of this court in a situation of this character, respondent’s motion must be denied. (City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Inyo Farms, 126 Cal. App. 61 [14 Pac. (2d) 339] ; Brown v. Gow, 126 Cal. App. 113 [14 Pac. (2d) 322] ; Losleben v. California State Life Ins. Co., 128 Cal. App. 221 [17 Pac. (2d) 155]; Nelson v. National Guaranty Life Co., 128 Cal. App. 341 [17 Pac. (2d) 155] ; Henry H. Cross Co. v. Prentice, 137 Cal. App. 497, 499 [30 Pac. (2d) 1017].)

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal or to affirm the judgment is denied.

Marks, J., concurred.

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

JENNINGS, Acting P. J.

This action was instituted by plaintiff, a woman 79 years of age, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of her adult daughter. Trial of the action resulted in the rendition of a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $10,881.23, of which the sum of $10,000 was awarded to plaintiff as general damages. Thereafter, the defendants presented a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and defendants thereupon perfected an appeal from the judgment and the order denying their motion for a new trial. The opening brief of appellants was duly filed and respondent now moves this court to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment under the provisions of subdivision 3 of rule V of the Rules of this Court on the grounds that the appeal has been taken only for delay and *537 that the question involved in the appeal is so unsubstantial as to require no further argument.

Examination of appellants’ opening brief discloses that it is there contended that the trial court’s findings are lacking in evidentiary support and that the amount awarded by way of general damages is excessive. Respondent’s memorandum of points and authorities submitted in support of the motion for dismissal or affirmance contains numerous references to the transcript on appeal. Inspection of appellants’ opening brief fails to produce a conviction that the questions involved in the appeal are so unsubstantial as to demand immediate affirmance of the judgment without consideration of the record. In accordance, therefore, with the settled policy of this court in a situation of this character, respondent’s motion must be denied. (City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Inyo Farms, 126 Cal. App. 61 [14 Pac. (2d) 339] ; Brown v. Gow, 126 Cal. App. 113 [14 Pac. (2d) 322] ; Losleben v. California State Life Ins. Co., 128 Cal. App. 221 [17 Pac. (2d) 155]; Nelson v. National Guaranty Life Co., 128 Cal. App. 341 [17 Pac. (2d) 155] ; Henry H. Cross Co. v. Prentice, 137 Cal. App. 497, 499 [30 Pac. (2d) 1017].)

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal or to affirm the judgment is denied.

Marks, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 P.2d 598, 22 Cal. App. 2d 536, 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ure-v-maggio-bros-co-inc-calctapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack