Cassady v. Montgomery County Board of Education

Supreme Court of Alabama

Cassady v. Montgomery County Board of Education

496 So. 2d 764

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedOctober 3, 1986

Docket85-452

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 496 So. 2d 764 (Cassady v. Montgomery County Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cassady v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 496 So. 2d 764 (Ala. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

The trial court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claim for want of prosecution is affirmed. The order of dismissal reads as follows:

"The Plaintiff having failed to appear on the date and time of trial and there not being a formal Motion for Continuance filed nor official notice to the Court of the reason for the Plaintiff's non-appearance, this cause is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution."

Unlike the plaintiff in Smith v. Wilcox County Board ofEducation, 365 So.2d 659 (Ala. 1978), whose only "fault" was described as "inactivity," the instant Plaintiff sought and attained a series of continuances over a period of 20 months, failed to appear at two scheduled pre-trial conferences, and failed to appear on the date the case was set for trial. We hold that the trial court, under these circumstances, did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Plaintiff's claim sua sponta, pursuant to Rule 41 (b), A.R.Civ.P. See, also, Selby v.Money, 403 So.2d 218 (Ala. 1981).

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.

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

The trial court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claim for want of prosecution is affirmed. The order of dismissal reads as follows:

"The Plaintiff having failed to appear on the date and time of trial and there not being a formal Motion for Continuance filed nor official notice to the Court of the reason for the Plaintiff's non-appearance, this cause is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution."

Unlike the plaintiff in Smith v. Wilcox County Board ofEducation, 365 So.2d 659 (Ala. 1978), whose only "fault" was described as "inactivity," the instant Plaintiff sought and attained a series of continuances over a period of 20 months, failed to appear at two scheduled pre-trial conferences, and failed to appear on the date the case was set for trial. We hold that the trial court, under these circumstances, did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Plaintiff's claim sua sponta, pursuant to Rule 41 (b), A.R.Civ.P. See, also, Selby v.Money, 403 So.2d 218 (Ala. 1981).

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 So. 2d 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cassady-v-montgomery-county-board-of-education-ala-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack