Legal Opinion
Birkhofer v. Krumm
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 13, 1938No. Civ. 2133PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMarks, J.
This is a motion, made under the provisions of section three of rule V, Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal, to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment on the grounds, (1) that the appeal was taken for delay only, and, (2) that the questions on which the decision of the case rests are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument.
Shortly after the effective date of the rule, July 1, 1932, this court announced its policy on motions of this kind, as follows:
“Unsubstantiality of questions involved in the appeal is made the principal ground for invoking the power of an…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Brown v. GowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles-Inyo Farms Co.California Court of Appeal · 1932
- Hall v. WolfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Barr v. HallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Rasmussen v. Fresno Traction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Birkhofer v. KrummCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- County of Riverside v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Kelly v. LiddicoatCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Olender v. BurnsideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939