Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bayley v. Souza

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 30, 1940No. Civ. 11276Published

1Dissent

WARD, J., Dissenting.

I dissent.

Ordinarily an order granting a motion for a new trial is presumed to be valid. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1963.) With respect to the order of the trial court on which this appeal is based, the presumption is overcome by the obvious noncompliance of the order with the terms of the statute. In no unmistakable terms the legislature has directed that an order granting a new trial on “all . . . issues” or part of them upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence, shall so specify, and that otherwise on appeal the order will be presumed not to be based upon that…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Fennessey v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Biaggi v. RamontCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Griffey v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1922
  4. Secreto v. CarlanderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  5. Parker v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1928

11 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