Agronofsky v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 12091.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 12091.,12091. |
| Parties | Sylvia AGRONOFSKY, Helen Agronofsky and Abraham Agronofsky, Appellants, v. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, A Corporation. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Sylvia Agronofsky, Abraham Agronofsky, New York City, Helen Agronofsky, Passaic, N. J., on the brief, pro se.
J. Lawrence McBride, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Dickie, McCamey, Chilcote & Robinson, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and MARIS and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.
The question presented by this appeal is whether the court below abused its discretion in dismissing with prejudice, for want of prosecution, pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C., and Rule 5(i) of the Rules of the court below, a complaint filed by the plaintiffs-appellants based on injuries alleged to have been sustained by them while riding in a bus operated by the defendant-appellee. The accident occurred seven years ago. The suit was filed in 1951. The case has been removed from the trial list on at least three occasions on the appellants' motion on the representation that a key medical witness was not available. After September 30, 1954, the case was carried on the trial list but was not reached. A pre-trial conference was held on January 24, 1956, and at that time the appellants' counsel was informed by the court that the case would be the second to be tried. On February 10, 1956, one of the appellants, being then present in Pittsburgh was told by her attorney to be available on twelve hours notice and that the case would come to trial on February 14, 1956. This appellant returned to her home in New York City but on the very eve of the trial she telephoned her counsel that she could not appear in court in Pittsburgh since she could not get her New York physician, the medical witness referred to above, to come to Pittsburgh to testify. She requested her counsel to procure another continuance. He urged her to be present and told her that if she was not present when the case was called that it probably would be dismissed.
On February 14, the day set for the trial, the defendant-appellee had its witnesses present in the court room or otherwise available. A jury was drawn. When counsel for the appellants informed the court that none of the appellants was present the case was continued until a designated hour in the afternoon. Counsel for the appellants then moved orally for another...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Rosenberg
...result in waste of court and jury time of a court which has a large backlog of undisposed of cases. Cf. Agronofsky v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 3 Cir., 1957, 248 F.2d 829. 15 The particular significance of this case lies in its reliance on footnote 3 in Diggs v. Welch, 1945, 80 U.S.App.......
-
Turner v. Ward, 7332.
...See Peckham v. Family Loan Company, 5 Cir., 262 F.2d 422, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 824, 80 S.Ct. 70, 4 L.Ed.2d 68; Agronofsky v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 3 Cir., 248 F.2d 829; 35B C.J.S. Federal Civil Procedure § 886, p. 6 Devins v. Crouse, Warden, 10 Cir., 319 F.2d 62, and cases therein......
-
Tradeways Incorporated v. Chrysler Corporation
...United States, 231 F.2d 328, 331 (2d Cir. 1956); Newport v. Revyuk, 303 F. 2d 23, 26 (8th Cir. 1962); Agronofsky v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 248 F. 2d 829, 830-831 (3d Cir. 1957); Refior v. Lansing Drop Forge Co., 6 Cir., 124 F.2d 440, 444, cert. denied, 316 U.S. 671, 62 S.Ct. 1047, 86......
-
Peckham v. Family Loan Company, 16817.
...here shown, to delay or continue a trial in order to permit a party to make preparation for trial. Agronofsky v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 3 Cir., 1957, 248 F.2d 829. There was no abuse of the trial court's discretion in denying the applications of the appellant for The appellant specif......