From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Plecity v. Keilly

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Oct 18, 1940
41 Cal.App.2d 206 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940)

Opinion

Docket No. 12578.

October 18, 1940.

MOTION to dismiss an appeal or affirm a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Leslie E. Still, Judge. Motion denied.

Harrison Weil and Donald E. Ruppe for Appellant.

A.P. Michael Narlian for Respondents.


Respondents move to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment on the grounds that the appeal was taken for delay and that the questions on which a decision of the cause depends are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument. [1] Prior to November 1, 1939, rule V, section 3 of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal (213 Cal. xliii) provided for the dismissal of an appeal or the affirmance of a judgment on the grounds of the present motion. However, September 29, 1939, the judicial council abrogated the section of rule V just mentioned, effective as of November 1, 1939. ( Taylor v. Parsons, 39 Cal.App. (2d) 336 [ 102 P.2d 1096].)

Therefore, the present motion is not well taken and is denied.

Moore, P.J., and Wood, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Plecity v. Keilly

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Oct 18, 1940
41 Cal.App.2d 206 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940)
Case details for

Plecity v. Keilly

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA PLECITY et al., Respondents, v. DAVID I. KEILLY, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two

Date published: Oct 18, 1940

Citations

41 Cal.App.2d 206 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940)
106 P.2d 207

Citing Cases

Tarasco v. Moyers

It is true that the present Rules on Appeal do not provide for the dismissal of an appeal on the mere grounds…