Buxman v. Shallenberger

Supreme Court of Colorado

Buxman v. Shallenberger

571 P.2d 1090, 194 Colo. 234, 1977 Colo. LEXIS 678

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedNovember 7, 1977

DocketNo. 27791

StatusPublished

This text of 571 P.2d 1090 (Buxman v. Shallenberger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buxman v. Shallenberger, 571 P.2d 1090, 194 Colo. 234, 1977 Colo. LEXIS 678 (Colo. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam

The petitioner commenced this original proceeding pursuant to C.A.R. 21(a), seeking relief in the nature of mandamus or certiorari. We issued a rule to show cause, and now discharge the rule.

The petitioner is the plaintiff below in a personal injury action. Trial was scheduled to begin August 22, 1977, but on August 10 the petitioner learned that her only medical expert would be unavailable to testify. On August 15, the trial court denied the petitioner’s motion for a continuance. The instant proceeding, challenging that ruling, was filed on August 16.

[235]*235However, on August 18 the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the petitioner had willfully failed to comply with discovery orders.

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

Per Curiam

The petitioner commenced this original proceeding pursuant to C.A.R. 21(a), seeking relief in the nature of mandamus or certiorari. We issued a rule to show cause, and now discharge the rule.

The petitioner is the plaintiff below in a personal injury action. Trial was scheduled to begin August 22, 1977, but on August 10 the petitioner learned that her only medical expert would be unavailable to testify. On August 15, the trial court denied the petitioner’s motion for a continuance. The instant proceeding, challenging that ruling, was filed on August 16.

[235]*235However, on August 18 the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the petitioner had willfully failed to comply with discovery orders.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 P.2d 1090, 194 Colo. 234, 1977 Colo. LEXIS 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buxman-v-shallenberger-colo-1977.