Legal Opinion

Placke v. Pinnell

California Supreme Court

Decided July 19, 1937No. L. A. No. 16291PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Plaintiff was the losing party in an action tried by the court without a jury (L. A. No. 16290). Plaintiff moved for a new trial. The motion was denied on November 23,1936, and notice of this ruling was served on plaintiff’s counsel on November 24th. On December 17, 1936, plaintiff filed a request for transcript pursuant to section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure. Because the request was not filed within the time specified by said section, within ten days after notice of order denying new trial, the court refused to settle the transcript. Plaintiff thereupon moved for relief…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Revert v. HesseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Paolini v. SulprizioCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Stenzel v. KronickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Atowich v. ZimmerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  5. Callaway v. WolcottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Kester Motors, Inc. v. HaddadCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API