Legal Opinion

Southern Land Co. v. McKenna

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 29, 1929No. Docket No. 6219PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOLLZER, J., pro tem.

This is an action to quiet title. Defendants appeal from a decree awarded to plaintiff.

It is difficult to ascertain on what grounds a reversal is sought. Appellants’ brief is a mixture of rambling and more or less disconnected narrative and discussion. No particular finding of fact is attacked. No points of law, respecting which it is claimed the trial court erred, are presented under separate or any headings. In short, appellants have failed to comply with rule VIII of this court, which requires that “the brief must present each point separately under an appropriate…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ransome-Crummey Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Rossi v. CaireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Usher v. HenkelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Clark v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Traub Co. v. Coffee Break Service, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Miller v. MillerMontana Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Wrinn v. StateConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
  4. Boyer v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  5. Sunset Oil Co. v. Marshall Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API