Richter v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co.

J. A. RICHTER, Roadmaster, etc. v. THE FRESNO CANAL AND IRRIGATION CO., FRESNO MILLING CO., Intervenor

Richter v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co., 36 P. 96 (Cal. 1894)

Court: California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: March 13, 1894
Docket: No. 18238
Judges: Fitzgerald
Citations: 36 P. 96101 Cal. 5821894 Cal. LEXIS 1080

Syllabus

Appeal—Insufficiency of Evidence—Failure of Respondent to Argue Case—Presumption. —Where material findings in a case appealed to the supreme court are attacked by the appellant on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support them, and the respondent has filed no brief and has not argued the case orally, the court will assume, without looking into the record, that the point urged by the appellant that the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings attacked is well taken.

Summary

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Fitzgerald

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Fitzgerald, J.—

Action to abate an alleged public

nuisance. Plaintiff had judgment, and the Fresno Mining Company, intervenor, appeals from the judgment and the order denying its motion for a new trial.

It appears that certain material findings in this case are attacked by the specifications on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support them.

But as the respondent herein has not seen fit to file a brief, or to argue the case orally, we do not feel called upon to perform the duty of counsel by hunting through the record for the purpose of discovering evidence to , support the findings, which it was his duty, if it existed, to point out to the court.

Under such circumstances this court will assume, without looking into the record, that the point urged by appellant that the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings attacked, is well taken.

Judgment and order reversed.

McFarland, J., and De Haven, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Butler v. McSpadden1910 OK 5, 107 P. 170
Lutz v. Merchants Nat. Bank177 P. 158 (Cal. 1918)
Rudd v. Wilson1912 OK 147, 121 P. 252
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board119 Cal. App. 3d 193 (1981)
Bullock v. Bullock155 P. 1009 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)
Duisenberg-Wichman & Co. v. Johnson7 P.2d 1081 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)

Most recent

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board119 Cal. App. 3d 193 (1981)
Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank v. Scott222 Cal. App. 2d 718 (1963)
Duisenberg-Wichman & Co. v. Johnson7 P.2d 1081 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
Lutz v. Merchants Nat. Bank177 P. 158 (Cal. 1918)
Bullock v. Bullock155 P. 1009 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)
Rudd v. Wilson1912 OK 147, 121 P. 252

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list