Pagán-Molina v. Santiago

Supreme Court of Puerto Rico

Pagán-Molina v. Santiago

37 P.R. 451

CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico

DecidedDecember 12, 1927

DocketNo. 4438

StatusPublished

This text of 37 P.R. 451 (Pagán-Molina v. Santiago) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pagán-Molina v. Santiago, 37 P.R. 451 (prsupreme 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice "Wole

delivered the opinion of the’ court.

This is very different from the majority of motions to dismiss for failure to incorporate the evidence, inasmuch as tLe appellant actually filed a statement of the case in the District Court of Aguadilla. The appellee filed objections to the statement which he did not notify to the appellant.. The court set a day to hear the parties. On that day the appellant appeared, but the appellee did not, and the appellant obtained ten days to answer the objections. Apparently the court agreed, to set another day, but none was set until this motion to dismiss was filed. The appellant alleges that in the meantime the district court was busy with hearings. In any event we find no such abandonment or neglect as would justify the dismissal of this case; nor does the appellee convince us that the appeal is frivolous.

The motion to dismiss will be overruled.

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

Mr. Justice "Wole

delivered the opinion of the’ court.

This is very different from the majority of motions to dismiss for failure to incorporate the evidence, inasmuch as tLe appellant actually filed a statement of the case in the District Court of Aguadilla. The appellee filed objections to the statement which he did not notify to the appellant.. The court set a day to hear the parties. On that day the appellant appeared, but the appellee did not, and the appellant obtained ten days to answer the objections. Apparently the court agreed, to set another day, but none was set until this motion to dismiss was filed. The appellant alleges that in the meantime the district court was busy with hearings. In any event we find no such abandonment or neglect as would justify the dismissal of this case; nor does the appellee convince us that the appeal is frivolous.

The motion to dismiss will be overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 P.R. 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pagan-molina-v-santiago-prsupreme-1927.