SMITH v. ROTHSCHILD (1934)

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

SMITH et al. v. ROTHSCHILD.

Civ. 9427.

Decided: July 19, 1934

John H. Black and J. M. Wallace, both of San Francisco, and Ross & Ross, of Redwood City, for appellant. Norman S. Menifee, of Redwood City, for respondents.

The plaintiffs have moved to dismiss or affirm under the rule upon the grounds that the appeal is frivolous and presents grounds so unsubstantial as not to require further argument. The motion was accompanied by a typewritten brief fully arguing the merits of the appeal. When this motion is made for the purpose of advancing the hearing of an appeal on the merits, or to avoid preparation of a brief under the rules, it should be denied. The motion in this case is of that character.

Motion denied.

NOURSE, Presiding Justice.

We concur: STURTEVANT, J.; SPENCE, J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network