Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico

3 Citing briefs

  1. IN RE ISAIAH W.

    Respondent’s Answer Brief on the Merits

    Filed February 17, 2015

    Servs., Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc., supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 56; Adoption of Alexander S., supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 864.) When a Court of Appeal disregards the applicable time period for filing a notice of appeal and endeavorsto entertain the appeal regardless,it exercises jurisdiction it does not have. (Van Beurden Ins. Servs., Inc.v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc, supra, 15 Cal.4th atp. 56, citing Hollister Convalescent Hosp.v. Rico, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 666.) Withoutjurisdiction, the appellate court has no powerto hear the appeal and the appeal must be dismissed.

  2. PATTERSON v. DOMINOS PIZZA

    Appellant’s Answer to Petition for Review

    Filed August 24, 2012

    ) All the cases dealing with the timeliness of a notice of appeal speak ofjurisdiction in the sense that the appellate courts, once a matter is before them, mayact in only one way. (See, e.g., Hollister Convalescent Hospital, Inc. v. Rico, supra,13 Cal.3d at p. 674 [court “lacks all power to consider the appeal on its merits and must dismiss, on its own motion if necessary”].) This is the hallmarkof a voidable, not void, judicial act.

  3. RYAN v. ROSENFELD

    Appellant’s Petition for Review

    Filed February 22, 2016

    Bentley Motors (2009) 174 C.A.4" 1004, 1008, as holding motions to vacate under CCP 473 to be appealable orders. It should be clear that Witkin, and the courts as a whole treat orders of denial under CCP 663 as being as appealable as those under 473. Witkin at section 200 (3) also distinguishes this Court’s decision in Clemmer v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1978) 22 C.3d 865, 871, 890, which held, without citation of authority, an order denying a CCP 663 motion to be non-appealable, as being “incongruous” and mere “dicta”; especially in light of contrary outcomes in such cases, prior and subsequent, as Hollister Convalescent Hosp. v, Rico (1975) 15 C.3d 660, 663, Forman v. Knapp Press (1985) 173 C.A.3d 200 and of course, Howard v. Lufkin, supra, (1988) 206 C.A.3d at 301-302, which deem Clemmer, supra, a maverick decision rather than binding authority; and which this Court has permitted to remain in place Eisenberg, et al, Cal. Practice Guide, Civil Appeals & Writs, Rutter Group, sections 2:171 and 2:173, is in accord. While the Court of Appeal’s January 13, 2016 order of dismissal also cites Eisenberg et al, 2:169, to the effect that “as a general rule, orders denying a motion to vacate are not appealable”,it distorts the assessment of the law in that treatise by blatantly ignoring the statement to the contrary at sections 2:171 and 2:173, which recognize, like Witkin, an exception for “statutory motions”...such as the very CCP 663 motion brought herein by Plaintiff/Appellant Ryan! City of Los Angeles v Glair, supra, (2007) 153 C.A.4" 813 is inadequate to overrule what Witkin calls this “established rule”.