Fritz v. Foote
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtDraper, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment declaring that a parcel of real property is owned by defendant, plaintiff, and another, each having an undivided one-third interest. By supplemental briefs filed at the court’s request, the parties have argued the question of the timeliness of the notice of appeal.
Since the notice was filed more than 60 days after entry of judgment, it was too late (Rules on Appeal, rule 2), unless the time was extended by the filing of a valid notice of intention to move for a new trial (rule 2(a)). To be “valid” within the meaning of that rule, the notice of intention must…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Estate of Hanley v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- In Re Estate of BrewerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Labarthe v. McRaeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Kientz v. HarrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- King v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Douglas v. JanisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- HIM v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Foote v. PoseyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Tuck v. TuckCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
- Smith v. Big Horn Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.