Nuffer v. Ware, 94 P.2d 61 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939). · Go Syfert
Search
Nuffer v. Ware, 94 P.2d 61 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ashton v. State, 2017 OK CR 15
How cited ↗
Cited for
94 P.2d at 73 Present evidence over speculation for clear and convincing standard1 citing casedenying ineffective assistance claim where the appellant failed to show what the witness' testimony would have been1 citing court put it this way
  • Ashton v. State, 2017 OK CR 15.published
    (denying ineffective assistance claim where the appellant failed to show what the witness' testimony would have been)
LEE NUFFER, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ROBERT W. WARE, as Sheriff-coroner, etc., Defendant and Respondent; CHARLES W. HOOPER, Intervener and Appellant; B. H. THORNE et al., Defendants in Intervention and Respondents.
Civ. No. 2366.
California Court of Appeal.
Sep 19, 1939.
Published opinion
94 P.2d 61
1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 149
Griffin.
Published

No appearance for Appellant.

Kenneth A. White for Defendants in Intervention and Respondents.

Lee Nuffer, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Elmer W. Heald, District Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent.

Griffin, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal. Notice of appeal from the judgment in the above-entitled matter was filed by Charles W. Hooper, intervener, on June 24, 1939, with the clerk of Imperial County. [1] From the certificate[*603] of the clerk it appears that since filing of the notice of appeal no proceeding was ever instituted for the preparation of a bill of exceptions or a transcript under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the time to institute the same has expired. Service of the notice of motion to dismiss was duly made.

Under the authority of Robinson v. Pismo Oil Dome Co., 31 Cal.App.2d 716 [88 PaCal.2d 725], the appeal is dismissed.

Marks, Acting P. J., concurred.