Meredith v. Arden

555 P.2d 1241, 92 Nev. 620, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 691
Nevada Supreme Court·Decided November 10, 1976·No. No. 8421·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

This action was dismissed for failure to prosecute within five years. NRCP 41(e). The complaint was filed August 18, 1965. Nine and three-quarters years elapsed without the action coming to trial. Now appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion to dismiss.

This court holds once again that a period of delay between the filing of the complaint and trial which exceeds five years [621]*621mandates dismissal. Under NRCP 41 (e) dismissal is required without regard to any exercise of discretion on the part of the trial judge. In the absence of a written stipulation extending the time for trial, the trial court properly granted the motion. Monroe, Ltd. v. Central Telephone Co., 91 Nev. 450, 538 P.2d 152 (1975); Trail v. Faretto, 91 Nev. 401, 536 P.2d 1026 (1975); Lighthouse v. Great W. Land and Cattle, 88 Nev. 55, 493 P.2d 296 (1972); Lindauer v. Allen, 85 Nev. 430, 456 P.2d 851 (1969).

Affirmed.

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

Meredith v. Arden, 555 P.2d 1241, 92 Nev. 620, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 691 (Neb. 1976).

555 P.2d 1241 (Meredith v. Arden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Massey v. Sunrise Hospital
724 P.2d 208 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1986)
Johnson v. Harber
582 P.2d 800 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1978)
Rudder v. Union Pacific Railroad
560 P.2d 160 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1977)