Legal Opinion

Rolling v. Hockenberry

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 21, 1935No. Civ. No. 1625Published

1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.

In support of his motion to dismiss this appeal for appellant’s failure to have filed a transcript of the record within the time prescribed by law, respondent has filed the certificate of the county clerk in accordance with the *310provisions of rule VI of the Rules for the Supreme Court and • District Courts of Appeal. The facts stated in the certificate are uncontradicted. It appears therefrom that notice of appeal was filed on December 24, 1934; that on the same date notice was filed with the county clerk to prepare a transcript of the record to be used on appeal; that no transcript has been…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bales v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1934
  2. Capley v. ClarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Ciani v. Dubuque F. & M. Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API