Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

97 Cal. App. 2d 492

Berry v. Ryan

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 15, 1950

California Court of Appeal · decided 1950-05-15

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““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 ]; Zeigler 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 ]. Cf., 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. ’ ’”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank v. Scott

Relies on 52 Cal. App. 2d 217 - Zeigler v. Bonnell · 66 Cal. App. 2d 147 - Postin v. Griggs · 54 Cal. App. 2d 136 - Bendlage v. Kohlsaat

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1950-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 1997 · most notably 105 Cal. App. 2d 623 - Slaughter v. Zimman (1951), 256 Cal. App. 2d 725 - Roth v. Keene (1967)

28 state decisions

10019501960197019801990decided

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, J.

¶1 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.

¶2 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].)

¶3 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.

¶4 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.

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

/97/calapp2d/492 · .json · Public domain