Legal Opinion
People v. Bell
California Supreme Court
Decided June 22, 1886No. 20118PublishedCited by 7 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. Motion to dismiss appeal. The defendant was convicted of the crime of grand larceny. The further facts are stated in .the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
The transcript herein does not show that the notice of appeal was served on any one. The law requires that it shall be served on the attorneys of the adverse party (Penal Code, sec. 1240), and the transcript on appeal must show it. (People v. Phillips, 45 Cal. 44; People v. Clark, 49 Cal. 455.) This not being the case, the appeal cannot be considered.
Appeal dismissed.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People v. PhillipsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- People v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- State v. PrestonNevada Supreme Court · 1908
- People v. ColonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Pueblo v. MartínezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1938
- Territory v. HarrisMontana Supreme Court · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.