Legal Opinion

McCahan v. McCahan

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 20, 1920No. Civ. No. 3330PublishedCited by 22 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior' Court of Humboldt County. George D. Murray, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, P. J.

Defendant appeals from the judgment granting her husband, the plaintiff, a decree of divorce. She also appeals from the order of the court denying her motion for a new trial. The latter appeal was unauthorized and is dismissed. (Code Civ. Proe., sec. 963.)

Were it not for the nature of the action and the situation of the appellant, we would feel justified in dismissing this appeal,' or striking the opening brief from the files. It is typewritten, not indexed, only four copies were filed, and no attempt seems to have been made in its preparation to conform to the requirements of rule VIII of…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Pereira v. PereiraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Barnes v. BarnesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  3. MacDonald v. MacDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Newman v. FreitasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Andrews v. AndrewsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Adams v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Locke Paddon v. Locke PaddonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Keener v. KeenerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Estate of BoesonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Moog v. MoogCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928

17 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