Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
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)
Judges

FRANKFORT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), et al., Respondents, v. A. CRAMER, Appellant.

RICHARDS, J., pro tem.

The record upon this appeal justifies a strict application of the rule laid down in section 953c of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is by the alternative method. The typewritten transcript embraces 120 pages. The appellant relies solely upon the point that the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings and judgment of the court. His opening brief contains no supplement such as is required by the rule, nor does it disclose any attempt at compliance with the rule by quotation, reference, or otherwise, directing the court to the portions of the record upon which appellant relies to sustain his point. Although appellant's attention was expressly directed by respondent's brief to his utter disregard of the rule, no effort has been made to correct the deficiencies in his brief, either by way of a reply brief or by application for relief to the court. Instead appellant has filed a stipulation submitting the cause upon the briefs on file. Upon the authority of Marcucci v. Vowinckel, 164 Cal. 693, [ 130 P. 430], O'Rourke v. Skellenger, 169 Cal. 270, [ 146 P. 633], and Williams v. Hawkins, 20 Cal.App. 161, [ 128 P. 754], the judgment is affirmed.

Shaw, J., and Sloss, J., concurred.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FRANKFORT GENERAL INS. CO. v. CRAMER
(Jul 23, 1918)