Southern Land Co. v. McKenna
California Court of Appeal
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
- Ransome-Crummey Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Rossi v. CaireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Usher v. HenkelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Clark v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
3Cited by5 opinions
- Traub Co. v. Coffee Break Service, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1967
- Miller v. MillerMontana Supreme Court · 1948
- Wrinn v. StateConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
- Boyer v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Sunset Oil Co. v. Marshall Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1940