PLECITY v. KEILLY (1940)

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

PLECITY et al. v. KEILLY et al.

Civ. 12578

Decided: October 18, 1940

Harrison Weil and Donald E. Ruppe, all of Los Angeles, for appellant. A.P. Michael Narlian, of Los Angeles, for respondents.

Respondents move to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment on the grounds that the appeal was taken for delay and that the questions on which a decision of the cause depends are so unsubstantial as not to need further argument.

Prior to November 1, 1939, rule V, section 3 of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal (213 Cal. xliii) provided for the dismissal of an appeal or the affirmance of a judgment on the grounds of the present motion. However, September 29, 1939, the judicial council abrogated the section of rule V just mentioned, effective as of November 1, 1939. Taylor v. Parsons, Cal.App., 102 P.2d 1096.

Therefore, the present motion is not well taken and is denied.

McCOMB, Justice.

We concur: MOORE, P.J.; WOOD, 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Out of date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