BALDIN v. FRIEDMAN (1938)

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

BALDIN v. FRIEDMAN et al.

Civ. 2408

Decided: December 15, 1938

No appearance for appellant. A. Heber Winder, of Riverside, for respondents.

Respondents have moved to dismiss this appeal, supported by the certificate of the county clerk from which it appears that an order denying a preliminary injunction was entered on August 7, 1936; that written notice of entry of that order was served on July 29, 1936; that notice of appeal was filed on August 7, 1936; that no notice to prepare a transcript on appeal has been made or filed; that no proposed bill of exceptions has been filed; that no proceeding for the preparation of a record on appeal is pending in the trial court, and that the time to institute such a proceeding has expired.

More than two years elapsed between the time notice of appeal was filed and the time notice was given of a motion to dismiss, and no appearance was made on behalf of the appellant when the motion to dismiss came on for hearing. Under these circumstances the motion to dismiss should be granted. Rees v. Roberts, 24 Cal.App.2d 69, 74 P.2d 296.

The appeal is dismissed.

BARNARD, Presiding Justice.

We concur: MARKS, J.; GRIFFIN, 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Out of date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