Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of California acting by and through the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lydia MASCOTTI, also known as Lydia K. Mascotti, Defendant and Appellant.
Appellant's petition for rehearing raises for the first time the claim that ‘the Sheldon judgment is erroneous in that it violates the constitutional provisions requiring payment of just compensation,’ because ‘it purports to limit interest upon the principal award to the date of entry of the SHELDON judgment [R. 60] as distinct from the date of payment to or deposit for the appellant ‘without strings' so that she could receive it without waiving her right to appeal upon the grounds heretofore appealed from.’
The point must be deemed waived by failure to present it in the briefs. ‘Counsel are not permitted to argue their cases in a piecemeal fashion and points not previously argued will not be considered where raised for the first time on petition for rehearing. (Epperson v. Rosemond, 100 Cal.App.2d 344, 348, 223 P.2d 655, 224 P.2d 480; 4 Cal.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, § 522, p. 365.)’ (Smith v. Crocker First Nat. Bank, 152 Cal.App.2d 832, 837, 314 P.2d 237, 241.) ‘No such point was suggested in the argument on which the petitioners submitted the cases for decision. It is the settled rule of this court that points made for the first time on petition for rehearing will not be considered.’ (A. F. Estabrook Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 177 Cal. 767, 771, 177 P. 848, 849.)
Petition for rehearing denied.
ASHBURN, Justice.
FOX, P. J., and HERNDON, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: Civ. 25919.
Decided: September 13, 1962
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)