Meredith v. Arden

Nevada Supreme Court

Meredith v. Arden

555 P.2d 1241, 92 Nev. 620, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 691

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 10, 1976

DocketNo. 8421

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 555 P.2d 1241 (Meredith v. Arden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

555 P.2d 1241, 92 Nev. 620, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meredith-v-arden-nev-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack