Lindenberg v. Brodek
Annotate this CaseFRED LINDENBERG, Respondent, v. ADOLPH BRODEK, as Administrator, etc., Appellant.
COUNSEL
No appearance for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
OPINION
The Court.
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:
[1] 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 appeal is dismissed. (In re Yahne, 193 Cal. 386 [224 P. 452]; In re Wignall, 193 Cal. 387 [224 P. 452].)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
