Legal Opinion

Luck v. Luck

California Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 1890No. 13567PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.

— This is an action for divorce. The prayer of the plaintiff was denied, and the custody of the children was awarded to the defendant. Plaintiff appealed from that portion of the judgment giving the care, custody, and control of the children to the defendant.

Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal on the following grounds: “ That the portion of the judgment appealed from is not appealable; that the notice- of appeal was not served as required by sections 1012 and 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure; that the notice of appeal was served by an attorney — Kierce — who had no authority to sign or…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Reed v. AllisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  2. Moore v. BesseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  3. Corning v. GillmanNew York Court of Chancery · 1846
  4. Murdock v. ClarkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. G. Ganahl Lumber Co. v. WeinsveigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Tilge v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  3. Carlon v. GrayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  4. Eshelman v. EshelmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  5. Osborn v. OsbornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954

1 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