Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

93 Cal. App. 2d 7

In Re LeVan

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 18, 1949

California Court of Appeal · decided 1949-07-18

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““. . . since the appeal is upon the judgment roll alone, we must assume that the proceedings taken in the lower court were regular in all respects (In re Pierce, 127 Cal.App. 773, 775 [ 16 P.2d 765 ]), and we are confined to an examination of the clerk’s transcript on appeal to determine whether there is any reversible error. “An examination of such record fails to disclose any error, but on the contrary, shows that each document and order was duly and regularly made and entered.” (See also In re Silva, 213 Cal. 446, 448 [ 2 P.2d 341 ]; In re Holt, 121 Cal.App.2d 276, 278 [ 263 P.2d 50 ].)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 201 Cal. App. 2d 662 - People v. Garcia

Relies on 78 Cal. App. 23 - In Re Matter of Hill · 127 Cal. App. 773 - People v. Helko · 127 Cal. App. 773 - In Re Pierce

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1949-07-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1998

5 state decisions

20194919501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McCOMB, Acting P. J.

¶1 Appellant, who is the mother of George Francis LeVan, Jr., a minor * , appeals on the judgment roll alone from an order of the Juvenile Court of Los Angeles County made January 3, 1949, releasing the custody of the *8 minor to the probation officer for placement in the home of the minor’s father.

¶2 Appellant asks that this court reverse the judgment of the juvenile court. However, since the appeal is upon the judgment roll alone, we must assume that the proceedings taken in the lower court were regular in all respects (In re Pierce, 127 Cal.App. 773, 775 [16 P.2d 765]), and we are confined to an examination of the clerk’s transcript on appeal to determine whether there is any reversible error.

¶3 An examination of such record fails to disclose any error, but on the contrary, shows that each document and order was duly and regularly made and entered. Appellant has failed either by argument or citation of authority to direct the attention of this court to any error in the-proceedings leading to or in the order of placement from which the appeal is taken.

¶4 The order is affirmed.

¶5 Wilson, J., concurred.

¶6 A petition for a rehearing was denied July 28, 1949, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 11,1949.

*

¶7 It is to be noted that the mother had the right to appeal as an interested party. (Welf. & Inst. Code (1944), § 580; In re Matter of Hill, 78 Cal.App. 23, 26 [247 P. 591].)

/93/calapp2d/7 · .json · Public domain