Warden v. Lathan

Idaho Supreme Court

Warden v. Lathan

524 P.2d 162, 96 Idaho 34, 1974 Ida. LEXIS 374

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 10, 1974

Docket11383

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 524 P.2d 162 (Warden v. Lathan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Warden v. Lathan, 524 P.2d 162, 96 Idaho 34, 1974 Ida. LEXIS 374 (Idaho 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

BAKES, Justice.

This appeal arises out of a judgment of the district court dismissing with preju *35 dice under I.R.C.P. 41(b) plaintiff-appellants John Wesley Warden’s and Gary Warden’s complaint for failure to prosecute their action. The original complaint was filed on April 24, 1969. According to the minutes of the court clerk, the case was ready for trial on January 8, 1971. Thereafter, the case was passed on four successive calendar calls. On March 29, 1973, appellants requested a trial setting. On April 5, 1973, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, supported by an affidavit alleging prejudice caused by the lack of availability of material witnesses. After a hearing the district court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss.

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that the trial court has the authority to dismiss a case because of a failure to prosecute, and that the trial court’s exercise of such authority will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that there was a manifest abuse of discretion. I.R.C.P. 41(b); Cox v. Widmer, 94 Idaho 451, 490 P.2d 318 (1971); Beckman v. Beckman, 88 Idaho 522, 401 P.2d 810 (1965); Hansen v. Firebaugh, 87 Idaho 202, 392 P.2d 202 (1964); 5 Moore’s, Federal Practice 1115, 2d Ed., 1974, § 41-11 [2].

We are mindful that all of the delay in this case might not be attributable solely to appellants. However, “. . .a plaintiff who hails a defendant into court assumes, and, so long as he has the affirmative of the main issue, retains the duty of diligent prosecution,” Hansen v. Firebaugh, supra, at p. 209, 392 P.2d at p. 206. This case has been pending in excess of five years. It was passed on four successive calendar calls, and over two years elapsed between the time the case was ready for trial and the time appellant requested a trial setting. In view of all the attending circumstances, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Costs to respondent.

SHEPARD, C. J., and DONALDSON, McQUADE and McFADDEN, JJ., concur.

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

BAKES, Justice.

This appeal arises out of a judgment of the district court dismissing with preju *35 dice under I.R.C.P. 41(b) plaintiff-appellants John Wesley Warden’s and Gary Warden’s complaint for failure to prosecute their action. The original complaint was filed on April 24, 1969. According to the minutes of the court clerk, the case was ready for trial on January 8, 1971. Thereafter, the case was passed on four successive calendar calls. On March 29, 1973, appellants requested a trial setting. On April 5, 1973, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, supported by an affidavit alleging prejudice caused by the lack of availability of material witnesses. After a hearing the district court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss.

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that the trial court has the authority to dismiss a case because of a failure to prosecute, and that the trial court’s exercise of such authority will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that there was a manifest abuse of discretion. I.R.C.P. 41(b); Cox v. Widmer, 94 Idaho 451, 490 P.2d 318 (1971); Beckman v. Beckman, 88 Idaho 522, 401 P.2d 810 (1965); Hansen v. Firebaugh, 87 Idaho 202, 392 P.2d 202 (1964); 5 Moore’s, Federal Practice 1115, 2d Ed., 1974, § 41-11 [2].

We are mindful that all of the delay in this case might not be attributable solely to appellants. However, “. . .a plaintiff who hails a defendant into court assumes, and, so long as he has the affirmative of the main issue, retains the duty of diligent prosecution,” Hansen v. Firebaugh, supra, at p. 209, 392 P.2d at p. 206. This case has been pending in excess of five years. It was passed on four successive calendar calls, and over two years elapsed between the time the case was ready for trial and the time appellant requested a trial setting. In view of all the attending circumstances, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Costs to respondent.

SHEPARD, C. J., and DONALDSON, McQUADE and McFADDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 P.2d 162, 96 Idaho 34, 1974 Ida. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warden-v-lathan-idaho-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack