Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Isett v. Frees

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 23, 1938No. Civ. No. 11778PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Upon submission of the motion to dismiss, the presiding justice in open court made the following statement:

This matter comes before the court on a motion to dismiss. The appellant has not appeared in the case; that is, there has been no transcript or brief filed within the time provided by law. The motion is good and it is granted. (In re Yahne, 193 Cal. 386 [224 Pac. 452]; In re Wignall, 193 Cal. 387 [224 Pac. 452].)

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In Re WignallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. In Re YahneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hamer v. State Highway Commission of the MissouriSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
  2. Levin v. LevinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  3. Upper Third Street Development Corp. v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Green v. EllisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API