Barnett v. Cal M, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a party “desiring review of a ruling of the trial court has a duty to see that a record is made of the proceedings he desires reviewed; otherwise the correctness of such ruling cannot be questioned”
• noting that inasmuch as a hearing was held and all counsel were present and participated without objection, any lack of notice of the hearing was not prejudicial
• observing that “because of the multiple claims in this case and of the failure to obtain a determination by the court making this judgment final, the court retained jurisdiction and had the authority to revise it at any time before the entry of the judgment”
• “Matters not called to the attention of the trial court, except 17 jurisdictional questions, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).