ALEX THOMPSON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
J. D. FLEMING, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PATROLMAN OF THE MISSISSIPPI HIGHWAY SAFETY PATROL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance and dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiff's counsel moved for a continuance due to other business, but the trial court denied it and directed the parties to proceed. When counsel ref…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The appellant complains of an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denying his motion for a continuance and thereafter dismissing the complaint when his counsel refused to proceed to trial at the time and place when the case was docketed for trial. We affirm.
The complaint was filed on June 28, 1966. It was signed by two attorneys and a third attorney was shown as “of counsel”. All three attorneys whose names appeared on the complaint listed their addresses as Jackson, Mississippi. The complaint was answered in July and on November 10, 1966, the deposition of the appellee was taken. A fourth attorney who also listed a Jackson, Mississippi address conducted the deposition. On April 4, 1967, another attorney who listed his address as Jackson, Mississippi, filed a written notice of appearance as counsel for the plaintiff. The record does not indicate that any of the attorneys mentioned ever withdrew from the case.
The case was originally docketed for trial on October 5, 1967, but was continued by the court until October 16, 1967, because other cases which appeared on the trial docket at that time ahead of this case were not completed. On Octo ber 16 when the case was called for trial, counsel who filed his appearance on April 4, as noted above, moved for a continuance and his motion was supported by the affidavit of one of the attorneys whose name appeared on the complaint. The continuance was sought on the ground that appellant’s counsel had not been able to prepare for trial due to other pressing business matters. The court denied the motion and directed the parties to proceed. The appellee announced ready for trial. Counsel for the appellant declined to proceed. Thereupon, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
We have carefully analyzed the record and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rutledge v. Elec. Hose & Rubber Co., 511 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1975)
-
Brown v. Thompson, 430 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir. 1970)
-
Jess F. Rhodes v. Amarillo Hosp. Dist., 654 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir. 1981)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence