From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Rapken

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division One
Jan 15, 1931
111 Cal.App. 107 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)

Opinion

Docket No. 7845.

January 15, 1931.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Prohibition to restrain the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and Frank H. Dunne, Judge thereof, from hearing an anticipated contempt proceeding. Denied.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Lucius L. Solomons for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.


THE COURT.

Application for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the trial court from hearing an anticipated contempt proceeding for failure to comply with a court order. [1] The petition does not set forth any of the court minutes, records, or citations from which it appears that any such proceeding is contemplated. The document set forth on page 5 of the petition is merely a subpoena, in the usual form, to appear as a witness in a proceeding pending before the court. While the petition alleges on page 5 that in pursuance of the subpoena the court proceeded "on the return date, and many times thereafter to hear and try this petition, based on said subpoena for contempt", etc., and "has proceeded to try her for contempt as a result of and based solely on said subpoena over the objections of petitioner" etc., the petitioner has not set forth the court minutes, or a transcript of the testimony, or something else of record to show that this has been done. All we have is the conclusion of the petitioner.

The petition is denied.


Summaries of

In re Rapken

Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division One
Jan 15, 1931
111 Cal.App. 107 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
Case details for

In re Rapken

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Application of ELIZABETH B. RAPKEN for a Writ of…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division One

Date published: Jan 15, 1931

Citations

111 Cal.App. 107 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
295 P. 344

Citing Cases

Lemelle v. Superior Court

(3) Just as an appellant must furnish an adequate record on appeal (see 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed.…

Hamilton v. Superior Court

The court adverted to the requirements of California Rules of Court, and noted as follows: "Rule 56,…