Esquivel v. Raney
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | VALL VALLEE; SHINN, P. J., and WOOD |
| Citation | Esquivel v. Raney, 234 P.2d 62, 106 Cal.App.2d 162 (Cal. App. 1951) |
| Decision Date | 17 August 1951 |
| Parties | ESQUIVEL et al. v. RANEY. Civ. 18200. |
Orloff & Pollack and Ruthe Jacobson, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Ralph N. Highsmith, Henry E. Kappler, Los Angeles, for respondent.
Plaintiffs appealed from an order setting aside the entry of the default of defendant Rupert B. Raney. No judgment has been entered in the action.
Section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure enumerates the various orders from which appeals may be taken. An order setting aside a default before judgment is entered is not one of the orders enumerated. It is therefore not appealable. See cases cited in 5 West's Cal.Dig. (1951), Appeal and Error, k113(3), page 152.
Appeal dismissed.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
4 cases
-
Davis v. Taliaferro
...v. Follmer (1948) 84 Cal.App.2d 815, 191 P.2d 777; Bernards v. Grey (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 679, 683, 218 P.2d 597; Esquivel v. Raney (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 162, 163, 234 P.2d 62; 3 Witkin, Cal.Procedure, pp. 2115, Appellant urges that the above rule is not applicable because the minute order o......
-
Leo v. Dunlap
...did), it is not an appealable order. (Davis v. Talisferro (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 120, 122, 32 Cal.Rptr. 208; Esquivel v. Raney (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 162, 163, 234 P.2d 62; Hughson v. Superior Court (1932) 120 Cal.App. 658, 659--660, 8 P.2d 227.) The propriety of such an order, however, may b......
-
Bolon v. Pennington
...v. Follmer (1948) 84 Cal.App.2d 815, 191 P.2d 777; Bernards v. Grey (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 679, 683, 218 P.2d 597; Esquivel v. Raney (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 162, 163, 234 P.2d 62; 3 Witkin, Cal.Procedure, pp. 2115, 2163.)' (Emphasis added) 32 Cal.Rptr. at 210 This seems to be the general law, a......
- Sherrod v. Saunders