McCLINTOCK v. ROBINSON (1936)

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

McCLINTOCK v. ROBINSON.

Civ. 1638.

Decided: July 16, 1936

Forgy, Reinhaus & Forgy, of Santa Ana, for appellant. L. E. Dadmun, of Los Angeles, for respondent.

Respondent filed his motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant had not filed his opening brief within the time provided by law. Subsequent to the filing of the motion, but before the hearing thereof, appellant had served and filed his opening brief.

On the authority of Graybiel v. Consolidated Associations, Ltd. (Cal.App.) 58 P.(2d) 665, the motion is denied.

TURRENTINE, Justice pro tem.

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Out of date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