Legal Opinion

Richard v. Richard

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 17, 1954No. Civ. 19926PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of defendants after trial before the court in an action for partition, plaintiffs appeal.

We do not pass upon the merits of the appeal in this case for the reason that appellants’ opening brief wholly fails to meet the requirements of rule 15(a), Rules on Appeal, 36 Cal.2d 1, 15. Rule 15(a) reads thus:

“Each point in a brief shall appear separately under an appropriate heading, with subheadings if desired. Such headings need not be technical 1 assignments of errors’ but should be concise headings which are generally descriptive of the subject matter covered. The…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Utz v. AureguyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  2. Monk v. EhretCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Hibernia Sav. and Loan Soc. v. FarnhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Kahn v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Coveny v. HaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Rossiter v. BenoitCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  2. Strutt v. Ontario Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  3. Greenstone v. Claretian Theological SeminaryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  4. Shakin v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. Devers v. GreenwoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956

23 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