HOMER G. MAXEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
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 district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit for want of prosecution or in denying the motion to reinstate.
Plaintiff's federal suit lay dormant for over four years while state court litigation proceeded. After a show cause order for which no response was fi…
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 Dismissal For Failure To Prosecute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order dismissing plaintiff’s suit by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, for want of prosecution. Plaintiff filed his suit on March 15, 1966 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The suit was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division. A suit involving the same parties and issues was also filed in the District Court of Lubbock County, Texas. The Federal suit lay dormant for more than four years while the parties pursued their trials and appeals in the State courts.
Pursuant to show cause order, of which all attorneys were duly notified on September 28, 1970, and to which none responded, the Federal court suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on November 2, 1970. On October 19, 1971, more than a year after the show cause order was served and just short of a year after the suit was dismissed, plaintiff moved to reinstate the Federal court suit. The motion to reinstate was denied, hence this appeal.
The dismissal of the dormant suit was pursuant to adequate notice. We are unable to perceive from the record or the briefs that the court in any way abused its discretion in the dismissal of the suit or the denial of the motion to reinstate.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rogers v. Kroger Co., 669 F.2d 317 (5th Cir. 1982)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Spotlight Co., Inc., 459 F.2d 880 (8th Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)