TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Berry v. Ryan

C. A. BERRY, Respondent, v. OWEN K. RYAN, Appellant

Berry v. Ryan, 217 P.2d 1015 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 15, 1950
Docket
No. Civ. 17359
Judges
McCOMB
Citations
217 P.2d 101597 Cal. App. 2d 4921950 Cal. App. LEXIS 1563

Opinion — McCOMB

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover for money allegedly due under a contract, and against defendant on his cross-complaint seeking to recover money he had paid to plaintiff under a contract, defendant appeals. There is also a purported appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial.

Respondent (plaintiff) has not favored this court with a brief.' Appellant (defendant) seeks reversal of the judgment on the ground, among others, that the evidence does not sustain material findings of fact of the trial court. Since respondent has not filed a brief we assume that (1) the facts as stated in appellant’s brief are true, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support material findings of fact of the trial court, and (3) respondent has abandoned any attempt to support the judgment, and that the ground urged by appellant for reversing the judgment is meritorious.

(Postin v. Griggs, 66 Cal.App.2d 147, 148 [ 151 P.2d 887 ];

Ziegler v. Bonnell, 52 Cal.App.2d 217, 218 [ 126 P.2d 118 ];

Bendlage v. Kohlsaat, 54 Cal.App.2d 136 , 139 et seq. [ 128 P.2d 691 ].

Of., Lawrence v. Johnson, 131 Cal. 175,177 [ 63 P. 176 ].)

Applying the foregoing rule it is evident that if material findings of the trial court are not supported by the evidence the judgment should be reversed.

The judgment is reversed and the purported appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial which is a nonappealable order is dismissed.

Moore, P. J., and Wilson, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1951: 21961: 11963: 11967: 11984: 11986: 11988: 21989: 11991: 11994: 11995: 11997: 119512026peak 1951 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rooz v. Kimmel55 Cal. App. 4th 573 (1997)
  2. Slaughter v. Zimman234 P.2d 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
  3. Smith v. Williams361 P.2d 241 (Cal. 1961)
  4. Roth v. Keene256 Cal. App. 2d 725 (1967)
  5. Issa v. Alzammar38 Cal. App. Supp. 4th 1 (1995)
  6. In re Marriage of Olivarez188 Cal. App. 3d 336 (1986)

Most recent

  1. Rooz v. Kimmel55 Cal. App. 4th 573 (1997)
  2. Issa v. Alzammar38 Cal. App. Supp. 4th 1 (1995)
  3. Savett v. Davis29 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 13 (1994)
  4. Bennett v. California Custom Coach, Inc.234 Cal. App. 3d 333 (1991)
  5. County of Los Angeles v. Surety Insurance207 Cal. App. 3d 1126 (1989)
  6. Mitchell v. Poole203 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1988)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Zeigler v. Bonnell, 126 P.2d 118 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942) 45
Postin v. Griggs, 151 P.2d 887 (Cal. Ct. App. 1944) 21
Bendlage v. Kohlsaat, 128 P.2d 691 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942) 10
Lawrence v. Johnson, 63 P. 176 (Cal. 1900) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list