Bank of California National Ass'n v. Banducci
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
Respondent administrator (hereafter referred to as respondent) has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is frivolous.
In Toohey v. Toohey (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 84, 85 [217 P.2d 108], we said: “The appellate courts are reluctant to dismiss an appeal on the ground of frivolity. Normally, the determination that an appeal is frivolous requires a full consideration of the ease on its merits, and for that reason should only be considered after full briefing by both litigants. But this is a rule of policy, not one of power. The appellate courts possess inherent power to dismiss an appeal…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Estate of WunderleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Damiani v. AlbertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Estate of SmeadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Hutchinson v. DowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- In Re the Estate of RohrerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Knoff v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Estate of MeyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
- Estate of CooperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Glass v. BenkertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Estate of ZabriskieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.