Legal Opinion

Arthur v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 21, 1956No. Civ. 21993PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NOURSE (Paul), J. pro tem. *

Plaintiff has appealed from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant city of Los Angeles, from a minute order denying her motion for a new trial, and from a minute order denying her motion to vacate the judgment appealed from. Defendants and respondents have moved to dismiss the appeal from the judgment upon the ground that the notice of appeal was not filed within time, and to dismiss the appeals from the two orders mentioned upon the grounds that they are not appealable orders.

Bach of the motions to dismiss must be granted.

The findings of fact and…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. De la Montanya v. De la MontanyaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. In Re Estate of BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Tabor v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Hughes v. De MundCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Sharpe v. SharpeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Bandy v. Mt. Diablo Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  3. Meier v. HeckelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Nitich v. FernandezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  5. Taliaferro v. CrolaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API