Legal Opinion

Franklin v. Bettencourt

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 21, 1936No. Civ. 5584PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

This is a motion under the provisions of rule V, section 3, of the Rules for the Supreme Court and the District Courts of Appeal to dismiss the appeal or affirm the order granting a new trial, on the ground that the appeal was taken for delay and is frivolous. The appeal is from the judgment roll only. The evidence and proceedings of the trial are not before this court.

The plaintiff Franklin brought suit against the defendant Bettencourt for approximately $28,000 damages for serious and permanent injuries sustained as a result of an automobile collision which is alleged to have occurred…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Pearl v. PearlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Delanoy v. DelanoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Donnatin v. Union Hardware & Metal Co.California Court of Appeal · 1918
  4. Bode v. LeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Tumelty v. Peerless StagesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Harper v. Superior Air Parts, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1954
  2. Legg v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident of OhamaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  3. Reilley v. McIntireCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  4. Brown v. Republic Productions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1945
  5. McPike v. ScheuermanWyoming Supreme Court · 1965

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

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

Powered by the Exa API