General
A. W. REYNOLDS, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent
64 Cal. 372·Supreme Court of California·1883·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[In Bank
November 30, 1883.]
A. W. REYNOLDS, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent.
Obbtiobabi—Lapse of Time. — Where the time to appeal from a judgment or order has elapsed, the remedy by certiorari is also barred, unless circumstances of an extraordinary character have intervened, and the excuse for the delay is shown by the application.
Certiorari to review a judgment and order made by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opini
Walter D. Stephenson, and Graves & Chapman, for Petitioner.
Bicknell & White, for Respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
By means of certiorari the petitioner seeks to call in question the validity of a judgment and an order made and entered considerably more than one year before the presentation of his' petition. In Keys v. Marin County, 42 Cal. 256, it was held that unless circumstances of an extraordinary character be shown to have intervened, the remedy through a writ of certiorari should be held to be barred by the lapse of the same length of time that bars an appeal from a final judgment.
In the present case no excuse is shown for the delay in the application.
Writ denied and proceedings dismissed.