Legal Opinion
Berendsen v. Babdaty
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 10, 1923No. Civ. No. 4234PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHouser, J.
Plaintiffs have presented a motion to dismiss the appeal of defendant Badaty herein for the reason that he has failed to file his opening brief within the time allowed by rule of this court, and the said defendant has filed a motion to be relieved from such default.
It appears that appellant was first late in filing the transcript on appeal in that while it should have been filed not later than January 3, 1923, it was not until February 12, 1923, that it was actually filed. At that time the attorney representing plaintiffs wrote a letter regarding the matter of further delay to Bernard Potter,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Bailey v. TaaffeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- McGuire v. DrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- McCabe v. HealeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Shain v. People's Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Egressy v. StansburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ledwith v. StorkanDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1942
- Mann v. Pacific Greyhound LinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Waugaman v. RichardsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Weinmann v. FactorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Clinton v. ShawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.