Legal Opinion

Hughes v. De Mund

California Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1924No. Docket No. L.A. 8386PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no transcript of the record or appellant’s points and authorities has been filed within the time allowed by law and the time for preparation thereof has expired, supporting his motion by a certificate of the clerk of the superior' court and by an affidavit of counsel. Appellant makes no showing contravening that submitted by respondent in support of his motion, but stands upon the contention that the showing made by respondent is not sufficient under Rule VI of this court to entitle him to a dismissal, in that it fails to…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Mallory v. SeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Voll v. HollisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  3. Cameron v. Arcata & Mad River RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. David & Son v. Hurgren & AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Winchester v. BlackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Pipoly v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Rojes v. Riverside General HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
  3. Fogo v. Cutter Laboratories, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1977
  4. Maffeo v. HolmesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. Forman v. Knapp PressCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985

20 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