Legal Opinion

Inderbitzen v. Lane Hospital

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 15, 1936No. Civ. 10222PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTyler, P. J.

Appeal from a dismissal of an action for failure to use due diligence in the prosecution thereof. The motion to dismiss was addressed to the inherent discretionary power of the court and was granted under that power. It is appellants’ claim that the court had no jurisdiction to grant the motion. This contention is based upon the last sentence of section 583 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides: “When in an action after judgment, an appeal has been taken and judgment reversed with cause remanded for a new trial, (or when an appeal has been taken from an order granting a new trial and…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Romero v. SnyderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Inderbitzen v. Lane HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  3. Frankfield v. FreibergerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Steinbauer v. BondesenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. Lieb v. LagerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Hicks v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
  2. McDonough Power Equipment Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Sweeney v. AndersonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1942
  4. Harris v. HarrisNevada Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Cameron v. CameronCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API