Scott v. Hollywood Park Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Fred H. Taft, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
VICTOR E. SHAW, J., pro tem.
In support of his appeal herein appellant, in lieu of a bill of exceptions and printed record, presents a typewritten transcript, in accordance with the provisions of sections 953a, 953b, and 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure. While section 953c declares the transcript of such record need not be printed, it, in express terms, provides that: “In filing briefs on said appeal the parties must, however, print in their briefs, or in a supplement appended thereto, such portions of the record as they desire to call to the attention of the court.”
In his brief, counsel…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Marcucci v. VowinckelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Miller v. OliverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- McKinnell v. HansenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
- Miller v. OliverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- In Re Estate of McPheeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
3Cited by16 opinions
- Johnson v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Chapman v. HicksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Dahlberg v. DahlbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Holland v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Jones v. Express PubLishing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.