Summary
In Reynolds v. Superior Court, 64 Cal. 372 [28 P. 121], our Supreme Court said: "... [U]nless circumstances of an extraordinary character be shown to have intervened, the remedy through a writ of certiorari [review, Code of Civil Procedure section 1067] should be held to be barred by the lapse of the same length of time that bars an appeal from a final judgment."
Summary of this case from Scott v. Municipal CourtOpinion
CERTIORARI to review a judgment and order made by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
COUNSEL:
Walter D. Stephenson, and Graves & Chapman, for Petitioner.
Bicknell & White, for Respondent.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
In Bank The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
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.