Ross

Ross v. Mahoney

Caution
134 Cal. App. 199·1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 72·25 P.2d 268
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 15, 1933Docket No. 1080.California358 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Barnard, J.

The respondents have moved to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment in these cases under Rule V, section 3, of the Rules of this court, upon the grounds that the opening brief filed by the appellants fails to set forth on its first page the statement required by Rule VIII, section 2; that the opening brief attacks certain instructions of the court without setting forth all other instructions given whiph bear upon the same subject; and that the appeal is frivolous and without substantial merit.

Before the time set for hearing this motion the appellants filed a printed supplement to their opening brief containing all of the instructions given, which may be taken as meeting that objection although not in the form most convenient for the court.

It is argued that a more extended statement of the questions involved is warranted in this case since it covers two judgments in consolidated cases. If that fact be taken into consideration the fact remains that the statement in the brief contains three pages and fails in several respects to comply with the rule referred to. Under the circumstances of this case we think the appellants should be permitted to furnish a proper statement in…

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.