March 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

The Fine Print

  • The Appellate Practitioner
    © 2007-2009
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.

Blog powered by Typepad


  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice or a solicitation for business. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.

« What happens if a party to the appeal dies? Claibourne v. U.S. | Main | New decision re doctrine of implied findings: Ermoian v. Desert Hospital »

June 18, 2007


Greg May

It's funny how the courts keep warning that they are running out of patience with parties appealing from nonappealable orders, but continue to save such appeals fairly regularly anyway! Will they ever really run out of patience and stop doing so? It seems they could stop if they wanted to. After all, don't the courts view "saves" as discretionary acts?

But it seems the Supreme Court put some limits on that discretion a few years ago in Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15, in which they held that a court "should" save appeals in certain circumstances (though I don't think the rationale applies to premature appeals).

The comments to this entry are closed.