LINDENBERG v. BRODEK (1938)

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

LINDENBERG v. BRODEK.

Civ. 11556.

Decided: April 13, 1938

Chas. I. Rosin, of Los Angeles, for appellant. Chenoweth & Whitehead, of Los Angeles, for respondent.

Upon the hearing on order to show cause why the appeal herein should not be dismissed for want of prosecution, the presiding justice in open court made the following statement: “In this case the court itself has served upon the appellant an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The clerk's and reporter's transcripts were filed July 28, 1937. Thereafter the parties entered into a stipulation taking the case off calendar, in the hope of making settlement. This court has waited sufficiently. There is no opposition, and the motion is granted.”

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network