Boren v. City of North Las Vegas

Nevada Supreme Court

Boren v. City of North Las Vegas

638 P.2d 404, 98 Nev. 5, 1982 Nev. LEXIS 368

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 6, 1982

DocketNo. 12085

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 638 P.2d 404 (Boren v. City of North Las Vegas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boren v. City of North Las Vegas, 638 P.2d 404, 98 Nev. 5, 1982 Nev. LEXIS 368 (Neb. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

The sole issue we consider in this case is whether an action must be dismissed if it was not brought to trial within five years because of a court order staying proceedings.

The action in the case before us was not brought to trial within the five-year period specified in Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 41(e). Appellant moved to dismiss the action for want of prosecution. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant claims that dismissal is mandatory notwithstanding the fact that proceedings had been stayed for more than four years immediately preceding the motion to dismiss.

We agree with the decision of the trial court. For a court to prohibit the parties from going to trial and then to dismiss their action for failure to bring it to trial is so obviously unfair and [6]*6unjust as to be unarguable. Appellants agree, but contend that the city as plaintiff had some kind of duty of diligence in seeking vacation of the stay order. The city did move to have the stay order vacated and this was opposed by appellant. We consider this immaterial, however, for we would be hard-pressed to formulate a rule describing the degree of diligence required under such circumstances. Instead we adopt the following rule: Any period during which the parties are prevented from bringing an action to trial by reason of a stay order shall not be computed in determining the five-year period of Rule 41(e).

Affirmed.

Gunderson, C. J., and Manoukian, Springer, and Mowbray, JJ., and Zenoff, Sr. J.,¹ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

Per Curiam:

The sole issue we consider in this case is whether an action must be dismissed if it was not brought to trial within five years because of a court order staying proceedings.

The action in the case before us was not brought to trial within the five-year period specified in Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 41(e). Appellant moved to dismiss the action for want of prosecution. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant claims that dismissal is mandatory notwithstanding the fact that proceedings had been stayed for more than four years immediately preceding the motion to dismiss.

We agree with the decision of the trial court. For a court to prohibit the parties from going to trial and then to dismiss their action for failure to bring it to trial is so obviously unfair and [6]*6unjust as to be unarguable. Appellants agree, but contend that the city as plaintiff had some kind of duty of diligence in seeking vacation of the stay order. The city did move to have the stay order vacated and this was opposed by appellant. We consider this immaterial, however, for we would be hard-pressed to formulate a rule describing the degree of diligence required under such circumstances. Instead we adopt the following rule: Any period during which the parties are prevented from bringing an action to trial by reason of a stay order shall not be computed in determining the five-year period of Rule 41(e).

Affirmed.

Gunderson, C. J., and Manoukian, Springer, and Mowbray, JJ., and Zenoff, Sr. J.,¹ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

638 P.2d 404, 98 Nev. 5, 1982 Nev. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boren-v-city-of-north-las-vegas-nev-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack