BRUCE v. RISLEY (1935)

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

BRUCE v. RISLEY.

Civ. 1742.

Decided: October 16, 1935

John D. Chinello and L. B. Fowler, both of Fresno, for appellant. W. H. Stammer, of Fresno, for respondent.

Respondent has moved to dismiss this appeal or affirm the judgment on the ground that appellant has failed to print in his brief, or a supplement thereto, any portion of the typewritten record relied upon by him, or to state the substance of such record parenthetically, referring to the line and page of the transcript for verification, and other defects in such brief. Section 953c, Code Civ. Proc.; section 3, rule VIII, Rules of the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal.

Appellant has filed a motion for an order permitting him to file a supplementary opening brief to correct the admitted deficiencies in the one now on file. Counsel have stipulated that such order may be made.

We regard this stipulation as a virtual abandonment of the original motion to dismiss or affirm. Smith v. Wagner, 129 Cal. App. 694, 19 P.(2d) 250.

Appellant's motion for an order permitting him to file a supplementary opening brief is granted and thirty days is given him so to do.

Respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion after the supplementary brief is filed if he be so advised.

MARKS, Justice.

We concur: BARNARD, P. J.; JENNINGS, 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Out of date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