Legal Opinion

McWilliams v. Hudson

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 9, 1929No. Docket No. 3717PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MONCUR, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court relieving respondents from their failure to file a bill of exceptions within ten days after notice of entry of an order denying a motion for a new trial.

In an action commenced by respondents herein, plaintiffs below, against appellants, judgment went for the appellants. Plaintiffs, within the time allowed by law, moved for a new trial, and the motion was denied on September 8, 1925, and notice of decision was served on respondents’ counsel on September 17, 1925. No order or stipulation extending time within which to file a…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Banta v. SillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Lake v. HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Kaltschmidt v. WeberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Kramm v. Stockton Electric R. R. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1913
  5. Griess v. State Investment & InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Hudgins v. Standard Oil Co. of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  2. Simmons v. Santa Barbara Ice and Cold Storage Co.California Court of Appeal · 1958
  3. Hixson v. HixsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  4. Manning v. GavinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Buis v. Lindauer Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1931

6 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