Legal Opinion

Baum v. Vanatta

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 24, 1934No. Civ. 1551PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.

The respondents have moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the notice to the clerk to cause a transcript on appeal to be prepared and filed was not given or filed within ten days after the denial of a motion ’for a new trial, as required by section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that notice of entry of judgment was served and filed on May 9, 1934, that a notice of intention to move for a new trial was filed on May 17, 1934, that said motion was never acted upon and was denied by operation of law on July 8, 1934, that notice to the clerk to prepare a transcript was…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hughes v. De MundCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Preo v. RoedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  3. Dreyer v. ColeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Anstead v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Bernschein v. WhitakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Dr. Miles California Co. v. BronstoneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API