Legal Opinion
Cohen v. Herbert
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 18, 1960No. Civ. 24667PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
VALLÉE, J.
Appeals by defendants Bow and Nancy Herbert from an order appointing a receiver. They also appeal from orders denying their motions for a continuance of the hearing of plaintiffs’ motion for an order appointing a receiver. The orders denying a continuance are not appealable (Estate of McCarthy, 23 Cal.App.2d 395, 396 [73 P.2d 913]), and those appeals will be dismissed. They are reviewable on the appeals from the order appointing a receiver. The appeals are here on a clerk’s transcript and a settled statement.
In compliance with rule 7, Rules on Appeal, each defendant stated in effect…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Bailey v. TaaffeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- People v. SarazzawskiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Gossman v. GossmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Jepsen v. SherryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Jaffe v. LilienthalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Rebney v. Wells Fargo BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Larson v. SolbakkenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Freeman v. SullivantCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- County of San Bernardino v. Doria Mining & Engineering Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1977
- Muller v. TannerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.