Legal Opinion

Cummings v. Kendall

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 29, 1939No. Civ. 6252PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

J.—The respondent has moved under the provisions of rule V, subdivision 3, of California Court Rules, to dismiss the appeal in this ease on the ground that the issues are unsubstantial and that the appeal was taken merely for delay. The appellants’ opening brief has been filed.

We are of the opinion that the appeal presents a legal problem too serious to justify the dismissal of the case without a hearing on its merits. The appellants contend that there is no evidence supporting the findings or judgment that their alleged negligence contributed in anywise to the injuries sustained by the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Merrill v. Los Angeles Gas Elec. Co.California Supreme Court · 1910

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Charles Edwin Roberts, Sr. v. Williams-Mcwilliams Co., Inc. v. Gibson Welding and Construction Co., Exxon CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
  2. Werkman v. Howard Zink Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1950
  3. Cummings v. KendallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  4. Lewis v. Western Truck LineCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. Callison v. DonderoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942

5 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