Kromat v. Vestevich

Michigan Court of Appeals

Kromat v. Vestevich

14 Mich. App. 291

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 26, 1968

DocketDocket No. 4,852

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 Mich. App. 291 (Kromat v. Vestevich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kromat v. Vestevich, 14 Mich. App. 291 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s cause of action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s pretrial statement.

The court’s pretrial summary is an important document and as provided in GCR 1963, 301.3, “The summary of results controls the subsequent course of [292]*292the action unless modified at or before trial to prevent manifest injustice.”

GCR 1963, 504.2 states, “For failure of the plaintiff to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against him.”

To have any effectiveness in the orderly process of litigation, a pretrial statement, when signed by the judge, must be considered an order of the court. The judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the motion.

Affirmed. Costs to defendants.

Fitzgerald, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Robinson, JJ., concurred.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s cause of action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s pretrial statement.

The court’s pretrial summary is an important document and as provided in GCR 1963, 301.3, “The summary of results controls the subsequent course of [292]*292the action unless modified at or before trial to prevent manifest injustice.”

GCR 1963, 504.2 states, “For failure of the plaintiff to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against him.”

To have any effectiveness in the orderly process of litigation, a pretrial statement, when signed by the judge, must be considered an order of the court. The judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the motion.

Affirmed. Costs to defendants.

Fitzgerald, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Robinson, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Mich. App. 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kromat-v-vestevich-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack