Donald O. Shaffer v. James Evans

263 F.2d 134, 2 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 678, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 6111
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedDecember 29, 1958
Docket5955
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 263 F.2d 134 (Donald O. Shaffer v. James Evans) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Donald O. Shaffer v. James Evans, 263 F.2d 134, 2 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 678, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 6111 (10th Cir. 1958).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff appeals from an order of the trial court dismissing his suit with prejudice when he declined to proceed further upon the court's denying his motion to dismiss the action without prejudice after the defendant had filed an answer. The sole contention on appeal is that the court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the suit without prejudice.

In the interest of protecting the rights of all the parties and accomplishing expeditious disposition of litigation, a motion by the plaintiff to dismiss after service of the defendant’s answer or motion for summary judgment is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the court. Rule 41(a) (2) F.R.Civ.P. Butler v. Denton, 10 Cir., 150 F.2d 687; Grivas v. Parmelee Transp. Co., 7 Cir., 207 F.2d 334; Larsen v. Switzer, 8 Cir., 183 F.2d 850; Federal Savings & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Reeves, 8 Cir., 148 F.2d 731.

This action had been pending for some six months at the time of the hearing on the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. Depositions had been taken, the defendant had made arrangements for medical testimony, and a pre-trial conference had been held. The case had not been set down for trial, but apparently was ready for trial at the next jury term. Requiring the plaintiff to proceed under those circumstances in the court in which he had filed his action could hardly be termed arbitrary. Certainly, no reason prejudicial to his substantive rights was suggested for dismissal, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Holbrook v. Andersen Corp.
130 F.R.D. 516 (D. Maine, 1990)
Helmer g. Brandano
875 F.2d 318 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Robert H. Gravatt v. Columbia University
845 F.2d 54 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Shepherd v. Delta Medical Center
502 So. 2d 1188 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1987)
Chorn v. United States
4 Cl. Ct. 666 (Court of Claims, 1984)
Spencer v. Moore Business Forms, Inc.
87 F.R.D. 118 (N.D. Georgia, 1980)
Petritz v. Albertsons, Inc.
608 P.2d 1089 (Montana Supreme Court, 1980)
Murray First Thrift & Loan Co. v. Benson
563 P.2d 185 (Utah Supreme Court, 1977)
United States v. Wyoming National Bank Of Casper
505 F.2d 1064 (Tenth Circuit, 1974)
United States v. Wyoming National Bank
505 F.2d 1064 (Tenth Circuit, 1974)
Standard Industries, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corporation
475 F.2d 220 (Tenth Circuit, 1973)
Standard Industries, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp.
475 F.2d 220 (Tenth Circuit, 1973)
Dobson v. Crews
164 So. 2d 252 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Alamance Industries, Inc. v. Filene's
291 F.2d 142 (First Circuit, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
263 F.2d 134, 2 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 678, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 6111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-o-shaffer-v-james-evans-ca10-1958.