Legal Opinion · Dissent

Estate of Hanley v. Hanley

California Supreme Court

Decided October 29, 1943No. L. A. 18316Published

1DissentCarter, J.

I dissent. I am in full accord with all that Justice Curtis says in his dissenting opinion in this case, but I desire to discuss the problem from a different point of view from that mentioned by him.

As I understand the majority opinion, it holds that the late filing of a notice of appeal requires the dismissal of such appeal regardless of the cause of the delay in filing such notice, and that any judgment rendered by an appellate court in such a case would be void. Because, if the filing of a notice of appeal within 60 days after the entry of judgment is necessary to confer jurisdiction upon…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Duncan v. RamishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Urtz v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
  3. Leese v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
  4. People v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Rowland v. KreyenhagenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864

36 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