California Courts of Appeal, 1933

Steffey v. Standard Stations, Inc.

California Courts of Appeal · Decided April 13, 1933 · BARNARD, P.J.

20 P.2d 971; 131 Cal. App. 202; 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 775 (Pacific Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Hunter v. Paxton (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
Christensen v. Couey (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
Di Giacomo v. Southern Pacific Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
Morris Plan Co. v. Heinz (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
Aaronson v. Aaronson (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
Christensen v. Couey (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
Franceschini v. Solis (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

[1] From the certificate of the county clerk on file herein it appears that notice of appeal was filed on January 21, 1933; that no bill of exceptions has been filed under section 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure; that no transcript has been filed under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure; that no request for a transcript under the provisions of section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed; that no additional time in which to prepare and serve a bill of exceptions has been allowed; that no proceeding for a bill of exceptions or a transcript is pending in the trial court; and that the time within which a record might be prepared under either method has expired. Respondents' motion to dismiss should, therefore, be granted (General Motors etc. Co. v. Holman, 63 Cal.App. 17 [217 P. 1086]; People v. Berkeley Chiropractic College,103 Cal.App. 139 [283 P. 981]; Union Trust Co. of San Diego v.Novotny, 125 Cal.App. 417 [13 P.2d 974]).

The appeal is dismissed.

Marks, J., and Jennings, J., concurred. *Page 203

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.