Legal Opinion

Matteson v. Klump

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 18, 1929No. Docket No. 6226PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHouser, J.

Plaintiff appeals from “the order of dismissal and the judgment . . . and presents for review . . . order denying motion for judgment . . . ; order denying motion to return amended answer . . . ; order denying motion to vacate order setting trial . . . ; order denying motion to strike original answer.”

The record herein contains nothing other than a so-called “Clerk’s Transcript”—no bill of exceptions or reporter’s transcript of the testimony, or of any proceedings had in the action. In view of such lack of conformity with statutory provisions and the practice regulating appeals, the only…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Westbay v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Rosenthal v. McMannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Davenport v. TurpinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  4. Parks v. DunlapCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Lindblom v. MayarWashington Supreme Court · 1914

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Lord v. GarlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Goddard v. Security Title Insurance & Guarantee Co.California Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Gonsalves v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Ensher v. Ensher, Alexander & Barsoom, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Everts v. BlaschkoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936

5 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