Vitrano v. Westgate Sea Products Co.

California Court of Appeal

Vitrano v. Westgate Sea Products Co.

91 P.2d 617, 33 Cal. App. 2d 362, 1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 234

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 14, 1939

DocketCiv. No. 2085

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 91 P.2d 617 (Vitrano v. Westgate Sea Products Co.) 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

Vitrano v. Westgate Sea Products Co., 91 P.2d 617, 33 Cal. App. 2d 362, 1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 234 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

BARNARD, P. J.

The respondent has moved to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that no brief was filed by the appellants within the time provided for in the rules governing this court and that there was an unreasonable delay in this respect. After notice of the motion was filed but prior to the time set for making the motion, an opening brief was filed on behalf of the appellants. Similar circumstances have been held sufficient to justify the denial of such a motion. (Toth v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 113 Cal. App. 55 [297 Pac. 564] ; Graybiel v. Consolidated Assns., Ltd., 14 Cal. App. (2d) 547 [58 Pac. (2d) 665]; Hall v. Wolford, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 537 [71 Pac. (2d) 596].) While the delay here was longer than that in the cases cited we are inclined to apply the same rule in view of certain circumstances which here appear.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

Marks, J., concurred.

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

BARNARD, P. J.

The respondent has moved to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that no brief was filed by the appellants within the time provided for in the rules governing this court and that there was an unreasonable delay in this respect. After notice of the motion was filed but prior to the time set for making the motion, an opening brief was filed on behalf of the appellants. Similar circumstances have been held sufficient to justify the denial of such a motion. (Toth v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 113 Cal. App. 55 [297 Pac. 564] ; Graybiel v. Consolidated Assns., Ltd., 14 Cal. App. (2d) 547 [58 Pac. (2d) 665]; Hall v. Wolford, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 537 [71 Pac. (2d) 596].) While the delay here was longer than that in the cases cited we are inclined to apply the same rule in view of certain circumstances which here appear.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

Marks, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 P.2d 617, 33 Cal. App. 2d 362, 1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vitrano-v-westgate-sea-products-co-calctapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack