Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

RAYMOND H. DUEHR et al., Appellants, v. CARL CALLAWAY et al., Respondents.

THE COURT.

The respondents moved to dismiss the appeal in this case for failure on the part of appellants to prosecute their appeal. The notice of motion was served on appellants' attorney, May 16, 1947. Notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, from a judgment which was rendered against plaintiffs, November 22, 1946, in Sacramento County, in a suit to quiet title to real property, was filed February 13, 1947. The cause was transferred by the Supreme Court to this court on May 15, 1947. [1] Appellants failed to appear in this court on the motion to dismiss the appeal, and also failed to file a written opposition to the motion as required by rule 41 of Rules on Appeal.

Rule 41 (c) of Rules on Appeal provides that:

"Failure of an appellant to appear and oppose a motion to dismiss an appeal after due service of notice of motion, or to file a written opposition to the motion, may be deemed an abandonment of the appeal authorizing its dismissal."

We assume from the foregoing record that the appellants have abandoned their appeal in this case.

The motion is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DUEHR v. CALLAWAY
(Jul 19, 1947)