Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Fred J. SCHLOTFELDT, District Director, etc., v. Bror Sten ANDERSON, 1935 — 74 F.2d 1019 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Fred J. SCHLOTFELDT, District Director, etc., v. Bror Sten ANDERSON
74 F.2d 1019·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·1935
Before EVANS, Circuit Judge.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Fred J. SCHLOTFELDT, District Director, etc., v. Bror Sten ANDERSON.
No. 5383.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Jan. 10, 1935.
Dwight H. Green, U. S. Atty., of Chicago, 111., for appellant.
David J. Bentall, of Chicago, 111., for appellee.
Before EVANS, Circuit Judge.
[MAJORITY — EVANS, Circuit Judge.]
EVANS, Circuit Judge.
Now this day come the parties by their counsel and present and file a stipulation to dismiss this appeal, which said stipulation is in the words and figures following, to-wit:
“It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto, by their respective attorneys, that the above entitled cause be dismissed.”
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby dismissed.