Legal Opinion
Luedinghaus Lumber Co. v. Luedinghaus
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 12, 1924No. 4166PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). A motion to dismiss the appeal is based on three grounds: First, that the transcript was not filed in this court until after the return day of the citation, and no legal orders were entered extending the time for filing the same. But it appears from the record that the reason why the transcript was not filed on or before the return day was that the appellees procured ex parte orders from the trial court extending their time to propose amendments to the statement of the testimony. Those orders by their own force extended the time for filing the transcript.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- City of Omaha v. Omaha Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Dakota County v. GliddenSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Palmer v. ClarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- California Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church v. SeitzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Guild v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe RailroadSupreme Court of Kansas · 1896
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Bewick v. MechamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. v. BeecherCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1945
- Rives-Strong Building, Inc. v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- B. B. Woodson, Trustee v. Bernard P. Chamberlain, in the Matter of Sterling R. DeckerCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1963
- Aitchison Et Ux. v. AndersonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.