Henley v. Bursell
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
Plaintiff has appealed from a judgment of nonsuit. No brief has been filed by respondents and on the oral argument their learned counsel relied for affirmance of the judgment chiefly upon the point that appellant should not be heard because he had not printed fully in Ms brief the evidence as required by section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 1919. In People v. Woods, 190 Cal. 513 [213 Pac. 951], however, it is said by the supreme court: “The statute requiring the printing in the briefs of the record and evidence relied upon on appeal (sec. 953c, Code Civ. Proc.),…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- In Re the Estate of ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Daley v. RussCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Warner v. WarnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Daly v. WedemeyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Dawson v. Tulare Union High SchoolCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Inderbitzen v. Lane HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Easton v. AshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Dale v. DaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Donze v. DonzeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.