Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
· 9/30/1889

Romine v. Cralle

Citations

  • 80 Cal. 626
  • 22 P. 296
  • 1889 Cal. LEXIS 968

Syllabus

<p>Appeal—Dismissal—Modification after Remutitdr.—The supreme court has power to modify an order dismissing an appeal, by making it read “without prejudice,” so as to permit the prosecution of a second appeal, notwithstanding the remittitur has issued before the modification is made.</p> <p>Id.—NON-APPBALABLE ORDER — MOTION TO REHEAR—NEW TRIAL MOTION. — When a motion for a new trial has been heard and denied, and no appeal is taken from the order within sixty days, an order denying a motion to call it up again for hearing thereafter is not an appealable order, and an appeal therefrom will be dismissed.</p> <p>Id. — Review oh Appeal — Validity of Order Denying New Trial — Authority of Attorney. — An order denying a new trial cannot be regarded as void because the motion was heard in the absence of one of the attorneys of record, if another attorney of record, who signed the answer of the moving party, appeared in behalf of the motion. The appellate court cannot go behind the record to consider the authority of an attorney who acted as such in the court below.</p>

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 child could not be excluded from her own trial unless the opposing party could show waiver, prejudice, or extreme circumstances
  • noting that while children may not be sui juris as a matter of law, they are still real parties in interest with a right to be present in a civil action
  • noting that while children may not be sui juris as a matter of law, they are still real parties in interest with a right to be present in a civil action
  • “[T]he exclusion of a party from proceedings with the jury at trial . . . is at the core of the right to be present.”
  • Court of Appeals erred in affirming trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion to exclude the injured child herself from the courtroom during the liability phase of the trial
  • discussing the history and sources of this right

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Thornton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.