Legal Opinion

Kraft v. Briggs

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 29, 1936No. Civ. 11101PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCrail, P. J.

This case comes before us on the motion of the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the appeal was not taken within the time prescribed by section 939 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the trial court a judgment was entered for plaintiff, and in due course the defendant moved for a new trial. The ruling on this motion was delayed until, on February 19, 1936, the motion was denied by operation of law. After the time had expired within which the trial court had jurisdiction to grant a motion for new trial, the court made such a purported order and later made the order nunc pro…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Forbes v. HydeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  2. In Re Estate of PuseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Lawson v. GuildCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Lancel v. PostlethwaiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Estate of JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. McDonald v. RandolphCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  2. Irving v. SheetzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  3. Estate of Hanley v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Estate of Hanley v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API