Legal Opinion
Lynch v. Watson
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 30, 1945No. Civ. 14789PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FOX, J. pro tem.
Defendant contends that the plaintiff filed his notice of appeal from a judgment of dismissal too late and that therefore his appeal must be dismissed. This contention is correct.
Plaintiff, on August 9, 1940, filed an action against John S. Holmstrand, who, on September 5, 1940, filed his answer and cross-complaint. On October 7, 1940, plaintiff filed his answer to the cross-complaint. On July 7, 1942, Mr. Holmstrand died. On October 14, 1943, the administrator of his estate was substituted as defendant and cross-complainant. The case not having been brought to trial, the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Gray v. CottonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Lawson v. GuildCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- City of Pasadena v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Mann v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Hotel Park Central, Inc. v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re MorrowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Reeves v. ReevesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Thomas v. FairchildCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Bice v. StevensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Raahauge v. RaahaugeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.