From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reynolds v. Dobbertin

Supreme Court of Michigan
Mar 19, 1962
366 Mich. 162 (Mich. 1962)

Opinion

Docket No. 4, Calendar No. 49,361.

Decided March 19, 1962.

Appeal from Calhoun; Coleman (Creighton R.), J. Submitted January 2, 1962. (Docket No. 4, Calendar No. 49,361.) Decided March 19, 1962.

Case by Otis E. Reynolds against John F. Dobbertin and Ivan B. Oberg, doing business as Dobbertin-Oberg Company, and another for personal injuries sustained while engaged in construction work. Case dismissed for no progress. Motion to reinstate denied. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Robert S. Feldman ( Henry W. Gleiss, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Cholette, Perkins Buchanan ( Don V. Souter, of counsel), for defendants.


This suit for negligence was filed in the Calhoun circuit May 28, 1958. The suit was dismissed as to one of the defendants (Potterville School District) by order dated September 26, 1958. Answer of the remaining defendants was filed December 30, 1958.

The clerk duly placed the cause on the no-progress docket of the May 1960 calendar of the Court. Defendants' counsel timely received their copy of the term calendar. Plaintiff's attorneys insist no copy was received by them. The cause was dismissed by order dated May 2, 1960, for want of progress under the statute (CL 1948, § 618.2 [Stat Ann § 27.982]). Plaintiff's motion to reinstate, filed January 10, 1961, was denied May 25, 1961. He appeals.

Plaintiff's attorneys contend they were neither apprised nor informed that the cause had been placed on the no-progress docket; that the cause was at issue; and that the parties were merely waiting for a notice of pretrial hearing from the circuit judge. They refer to the "shall" mandate appearing in the first line of section 4 of Court Rule No 35 (1945), and insist that failure of the court to order the rule-required pretrial conference suspended, in some way, operation of the cited no-progress statute. No authority for such proposition is cited, and we independently find none.

See revision of section 4 effective July 1, 1958, in 352 Mich xv. — REPORTER.

The presented question is one of judicial discretion, and no abuse thereof has been made to appear. See the controlling cases of Robinson v. Washtenaw Circuit Judge, 242 Mich. 548; Sezor v. Proctor Gamble Soap Co., 267 Mich. 128; and Hoad v. Macomb Circuit Judge, 298 Mich. 462.

Affirmed. Costs to defendant-appellees.

DETHMERS, C.J., and CARR, KELLY, BLACK, KAVANAGH, SOURIS, OTIS M. SMITH, and ADAMS, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Reynolds v. Dobbertin

Supreme Court of Michigan
Mar 19, 1962
366 Mich. 162 (Mich. 1962)
Case details for

Reynolds v. Dobbertin

Case Details

Full title:REYNOLDS v. DOBBERTIN

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Mar 19, 1962

Citations

366 Mich. 162 (Mich. 1962)
113 N.W.2d 888

Citing Cases

Tolas Oil & Gas Expl. Co. v. Bach Servs. & Mfg.

This Court also reviews a trial court's decision to dismiss a case for no progress for an abuse of…

Heaney v. Verson Allsteel Press

The reinstatement of a case which has been dismissed for no progress rests within the sound discretion of the…