Epperson v. Rosemond
| Decision Date | 05 December 1950 |
| Citation | 224 P.2d 480,100 Cal.App.2d 344 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | EPPERSON v. ROSEMOND et al. Civ. 14498. |
Joseph A. Garry, Cyril F. Marelia, and Melvin, Faulkner, Sheehan & Wiseman, all of San Francisco, for appellants.
C. D. Dorn, San Francisco, for respondent.
Appellants where they blew very hot in their briefs blow very cold indeed in their petition for rehearing. In the petition for rehearing appellants say:
Counsel show something less than the ordinary amount of candor which might be expected in a petition directed to the same court which has read the briefs. Appellate courts do not look to the pleadings to ascertain the points urged on appeal. They look to the briefs.
The only headings (Rule 15(a) Rules on Appeal) appearing in appellants' opening brief read:
We held with appellants on their Point IV.
We invite counsel to read again their points I, II and III and the arguments under them. Such a reading will demonstrate why the court not only assumed that defendants relied on the special defenses of laches, estoppel and an account stated, but was compelled to believe that they placed their sole reliance on those three defenses. Because those are the only defenses which they did in fact present in their briefs.
Appellants in their petition for rehearing are now seeking to change their basis of attack on the judgment. 'Appellate courts cannot submit to piecemeal argument and will not consider on petition for rehearing questions not previously raised.' Bradley v. Bradley, 94 Cal.App.2d 310, 312, 210 P.2d 537, 211 P.2d 638.
Petition for rehearing denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.J. v. Cnty. of San Diego
...not previously raised’ ” absent extraordinary circumstances, which are not present in the instant case. (See Epperson v. Rosemond (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 344, 348, 224 P.2d 480; see also Sanders v. Howard Park Co. (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 721, 723, 195 P.2d 898 [noting an ‘argument based upon a p......
-
Smith v. Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, A093277.
...to compel arbitration, because the issue was not raised until respondents' petition for rehearing. (See, e.g., Epperson v. Rosemond (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 344, 347, 224 P.2d 480; Sanders v. Howard Park Co. (1948) 86 CaI.App.2d 721, 723, 195 P.2d ...
-
Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co.
...v. Henarie, 49 Cal. 686; Prince v. Hill, 170 Cal. 192, 195, 149 P. 578; Epperson v. Rosemond, 100 Cal.App.2d 344, 348, 223 P.2d 655, 224 P.2d 480. Criticism of the practice of raising new points in petitions for rehearing was expressed by the Supreme Court as early as 1857 in the case of An......
-
Craycroft's Estate, In re
...partners any greater amount regardless of the actual value of that interest (Epperson v. Rosemond, 100 Cal.App.2d 344, 346, 223 P.2d 655, 224 P.2d 480), the respondents, the son and daughter, claim that the estate of their mother is entitled only to the value of her interest in the partners......