Hoover

Hoover v. City of Fresno

Good Law
1969 Cal. App. LEXIS 2237·272 Cal. App. 2d 7·77 Cal. Rptr. 146
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 16, 1969Civ. 930California2,322 words

Opinion

Opinion

Conley, J.

The plaintiff, who was seriously injured in an explosion, appeals from the summary judgment against him granted to two of the defendants, City of Fresno and its fire marshal, Floyd E. Watson. Appellant also appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial; one would assume that by this time every lawyer in the state would know that there is no such thing, currently, as a permitted appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial. In Rodriguez v. Barnett, 52 Cal.2d 154, 156 [ 338 P.2d 907 ], it was said at the beginning of the opinion that the attempted appeal from a refusal to grant a new trial “. . . was dismissed from the bench with an admonition from the Chief Justice to counsel and to members of the bar generally to cease appealing from such an obviously nonappealable order.” The purported appeal in this case from the denial of the motion for a new trial is, therefore, dismissed, and the propriety of the ruling in question will be considered as provided by law in a review of the judgment.

This action was commenced by L. R. Hoover after he received alleged serious injuries by being blown from a hoist truck parked on the sidewalk on North Blaekstone Avenue while he…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.