Curtis H. Springer v. May Best

Good Law
264 F.2d 24
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 18, 195915897_1California2,549 words

Opinion

Opinion

Barnes, J.

This appeal presents an incredible and almost impossible “record” for a reviewing court. Appellant Springer, though constantly urged to employ legal counsel, appears in propria persona. Appellee May Best, though repeatedly urged to employ legal counsel, appears in propria persona. Appellee Albright appears by attorneys Herzig and Hill, as do the three appellee minors, Lolly, Dolly and Tommy Best. One of the attorneys, Max L. Herzig states, seeking to appear as amicus curiae, “that he is a physician by profession.” We commented in our per curiam opinion affirming the lower court in the companion Adamson case on his lack of legal skill. This case presents similar examples, but more of them. This because here the ease was tried, not dismissed below.

The matter stricken from the record here is comparable in volume to that which remains before us. Much more could readily have been stricken as impertinent, scandalous, scurrilous, and of no relevancy whatsoever. However, we have patiently attempted to examine all that was before us, and have endeavored to understand and interpret to the best of our ability the truly remarkable collection of documents — the pleadings and the exhibits.…

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.