KIENTZ v. HARRIS (1953)

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Victor Vincent KIENTZ, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Respondent, v. Arthur O'Dell HARRIS, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Appellant.

Civ. 8417.

Decided: May 15, 1953

Hoge & Fenton, Monterey, and Verne Summers, Bridgeport, Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, San Francisco, for appellant. C. Ray Robinson, Merced, for respondent.

In Kientz v. Harris, Cal.App., 257 P.2d 41, we held that upon the facts stated the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this Court to entertain the same. Motion to dismiss this appeal has been made upon the same ground. The facts in each case as to jurisdiction are identical. There is no need, therefore, to file an extended opinion herein.

Upon the authority of that case, the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal herein is dismissed.

VAN DYKE, Presiding Judge.

PEEK and SCHOTTKY, JJ., concur.

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Out of date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