Legal Opinion
Benson v. Gardner
California Supreme Court
Decided October 26, 1939No. L. A. 17268PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KNIGHT, J., pro tem.
Respondents move to dismiss the appeal herein upon the grounds that no transcript has been filed and that the forty-day period fixed by section 1 of rule I of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal within which a transcript could have been filed has long since expired.
The appeal was taken from a judgment entered in favor of respondents pursuant to an order sustaining a de murrer to the complaint without leave to amend; hence it is one that may be taken, presented and determined on the judgment roll alone. (City of Los Angeles v. Forrester, 4 Cal.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Locke Paddon v. Locke PaddonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Lake v. HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- McKinnell v. HansenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
- Griffin v. KentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Sterling Corporation v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Peak v. NicholsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Savage v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Neusted v. SkernswellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Dr. Miles California Co. v. BronstoneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Ertman v. BlumenthalAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1945