STAPP v. MARSHBURN (1959)

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

William L. STAPP, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Sally Ann MARSHBURN et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 5758.

Decided: January 06, 1959

William L. Stapp, in pro per. Ball, Hunt & Hart and Clark Heggeness, Long Beach, for defendants.

As grounds for a rehearing appellant urges (1) that the record on appeal was incomplete; (2) that errors in the giving and refusing of instructions and misconduct of counsel, not heretofore specified, should now be considered; and (3) that this court incorrectly stated the ‘testimony’.

The ‘testimony’ referred to is a narrative of the facts supported by evidence in the record, and related in consonance with the rule on appeal as stated in our opinion.

Objections respecting the incompleteness of the record, newly specified errors in the giving and refusing of instructions and the alleged misconduct of counsel now are being raised for the first time.

On a petition for rehearing an appellate court will not consider questions not previously raised. Pasadena Ice Co. v. Reeder, 206 Cal. 697, 705, 275 P. 944, 276 P. 995; Estabrook Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm., 177 Cal. 767, 177 P. 848; Ocean Park Pier Amusement Corp. v. City of Santa Monica, 40 Cal.App.2d 76, 87, 104 P.2d 668, 879; Conner v. East Bay Municipal Utility Dist., 8 Cal.App.2d 613, 619, 47 P.2d 774, 48 P.2d 982.

Rehearing denied.

PER CURIAM.

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Out of date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