Fidelity Acceptance Corp. v. Brown
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., December 6, 1976 340 So. 2d 642
Fidelity Acceptance Corp. v. Brown, 382 So. 2d 1007 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980).
The holding in the court’s own words
We hold that under the stated circumstances the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s cause of action.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- Berry v. Frank 640 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
- Fauré v. Department of Health & Human Resources, Office of Preventive & Public Health … 504 So. 2d 1022 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
- Dooley v. Dooley 478 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Bradford v. J. Ray McDermott & Co. 347 So. 2d 1218
- American Bank & Trust Co. v. Byron 351 So. 2d 155
Opinion text
COLE, Judge. Plaintiff appeals a judgment rendered by the trial court upon its own motion dismiss *1008 ing this suit, with prejudice. The issue is whether plaintiffs failure to appear on the scheduled trial date is sufficient cause for such a dismissal considering that defendants’ counsel also failed to timely appear and the record is devoid of any meaningful fact other than counsel for plaintiff’s explanation that the failure to appear and proceed with the merits was due to a clerical error in his office. We hold that under the stated circumstances the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s cause of action. C.C.P. arts. 1631, 1672. Cf. Bradford v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 347 So.2d 1218 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1977), writ denied, La., 351 So.2d 155 . We vacate the judgment appealed from and remand for dismissal without prejudice or for further proceedings in accordance with law. Costs of the appeal are to be borne by plaintiff. VACATED and REMANDED.