Green v. Eure

197 S.E.2d 599, 18 N.C. App. 671, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1976
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedJuly 11, 1973
Docket7310SC324
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 197 S.E.2d 599 (Green v. Eure) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Green v. Eure, 197 S.E.2d 599, 18 N.C. App. 671, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1976 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

North Carolina Civil Procedure Rule 41(b), substantially the same as its federal counterpart, authorizes dismissal with prejudice of a plaintiff’s claim for failure to prosecute. It was held in Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 8 L.Ed. 2d 734, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962), that courts have inherent power to dismiss stale actions, even on their own motion, and without notice or hearing by the parties if the circumstances indicate a knowledge of the party of the consequences of his own conduct.

The courts, however, are primarily concerned with trial of causes on their merits. Therefore, mere lapse of time does not justify dismissal if the plaintiff has not been lacking in diligence. Expedition for its own sake is not the goal. Thus in the Link case the Supreme Court was careful to detail the six-year delay in prosecution and to review facts from which it could reasonably be inferred that the plaintiff had been deliberately proceeding in dilatory fashion.

Dismissal for failure to prosecute is proper only where the plaintiff manifests an intention to thwart the progress of the action to its conclusion, or by some delaying tactic plaintiff fails to progress the action toward its conclusion. 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, Paragraph 41.11 [2].

In the instant case plaintiff’s failure to proceed did not arise out of a deliberate attempt to delay, but out of misunderstanding. Plaintiff assumed that upon filing the action, it would be calendared by the Clerk of Superior Court of Wake County and the Wake County Calendar Committee as provided by Rule 2 of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts.

*673 We hold that dismissal of plaintiff’s action was improper.

Reversed.

Judges Britt and Baley concur.

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

Related

Winters v. Ya
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2025
Cowperthwait v. Salem Baptist Church
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2023
Ray v. Greer
713 S.E.2d 93 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2011)
Cohen v. McLawhorn
704 S.E.2d 519 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2010)
Eakes v. Eakes
669 S.E.2d 891 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2008)
In re Will of Kersey
627 S.E.2d 309 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2006)
Spencer v. Albemarle Hospital
577 S.E.2d 151 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)
Wilder v. Wilder
553 S.E.2d 425 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Henderson v. Wachovia Bank of North Carolina, N.A.
551 S.E.2d 464 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Lowry v. Duke University Medical Center
425 S.E.2d 739 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Foy v. Hunter
418 S.E.2d 299 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1992)
Lusk v. Crawford Paint Co.
416 S.E.2d 207 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1992)
DEP'T OF REV. EX REL. PEOPLE OF ILL. v. Steinkopf
513 N.E.2d 1016 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1987)
Simmons v. Tuttle
318 S.E.2d 847 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1984)
Jones v. Stone
279 S.E.2d 13 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1981)
Barbee v. Walton's Jewelers, Inc.
253 S.E.2d 596 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)
City of Crystal Lake v. Sak
367 N.E.2d 989 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
197 S.E.2d 599, 18 N.C. App. 671, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-eure-ncctapp-1973.