Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PEOPLE v. ROSEN.†
The defendant appeals from a conviction of robbery of the first degree and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The defendant in his brief has failed to comply with rule VIII, section 2, of Rules of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal, which requires that he “must present each point separately under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented or the point to be made.”
In the case of Sun Lumber Company v. Bradfield, 122 Cal.App. 391, 393, 10 P.(2d) 183, 184, it was said, “This rule applies to all briefs, regardless of length or number of points involved, and, under the provisions of the rule, failure to comply therewith may result in a dismissal of the appeal. This rule has been in effect for many years, and has been called to the attention of the bar in numerous opinions. Dismissals may be required to compel its observance.” The rule is not a mere technical requirement adopted without plan or purpose but was prescribed for the purpose of requiring the parties to direct the court's attention to specific errors of law alleged to have been committed by the trial court. The headings must show the nature of the question to be raised, thus facilitating the disposition of cases upon appeal. Graybeal v. Press–Telegram Pub. Co., 14 Cal.App.(2d) 252, 57 P.(2d) 1343; Battson v. Kirkpatrick, 11 Cal.App.(2d) 283, 53 P.(2d) 762; Bernstein v. Congregation Anshi, 14 Cal.App.(2d) 96, 57 P.(2d) 954; People v. Knight, 63 Cal.App. 63, 218 P. 79. This court has been enforcing this rule.
For the reason stated the appeal will be dismissed.
CRAIL, Presiding Justice.
I concur: McCOMB, J.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Cr. 2982.
Decided: May 26, 1937
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)