Legal Opinion

Kilmer v. Carter

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 17, 1969No. Civ. 32590PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKaus, P. J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment based upon findings and conclusions to the effect that although the defendant attorneys were negligent in failing to file an opening brief in. a previous appeal, thereby causing it to be dismissed under rule 17 (a) of the California Rules of Court, plaintiff was not damaged because he failed to prove that the appeal would have been won.

We are thus called upon to determine whether the trial court in the case at bar correctly decided that plaintiff did not “prove that the appeal . . . would have resulted in a reversal.” (Pete v. Henderson, 124 Cal.App.2d 487,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Freedman v. Rector, Wardens & Vestrymen of St. Matthias ParishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Campbell v. MaganaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Lally v. KusterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Pete v. HendersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Central Cab Co. v. ClarkeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1970
  2. Duke & Co. v. AndersonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. Martin v. HallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
  4. Jablonski v. HigginsCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · 1983
  5. Dings v. CallahanCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1979

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API