Cervi v. Town of Greenwood Village, 19570
Decision Date | 03 July 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 19570,19570 |
Citation | 147 Colo. 190,362 P.2d 1050 |
Parties | Eugene CERVI, Eulalia Cervi and C. L. Thomas, Plaintiffs in Error, v. TOWN OF GREENWOOD VILLAGE, a municipal corporation, Defendant in Error. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
J. Fred Schneider, Fred M. Winner, Warren O. Martin, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Charles R. Enos, Bernice M. Buchler, John M. Deisch, Denver, C. Charles Buchler, Englewood, for defendant in error.
The parties appear here in the same order as they appeared in the trial court, and will be designated accordingly.
Plaintiffs are property owners in the Town of Greenwood Village in Arapahoe County, Colorado. They petitioned the County Court on March 25, 1952, under C.R.S. rights if they are forced to file a new action under the law now in effect. On June 14, 1960, the County Court dismissed the petition for failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs are here by writ of error, asserting that the trial court erred in ordering the dismissal. The propriety of this dismissal is the sole issue before us.
The pertinent history of the case is as follows: It was first set for trial on May 6, 1952, and later postponed to January 19, 1954. This was followed by negotiations toward settlement. Further delay was occasioned by the fact that plaintiffs were required to obtain new counsel after their then attorney took office as County Judge in 1957. The case was again set for trial on December 16, 1958. This trial date was postponed at the request of defendant's attorney. On this occasion plaintiffs' attorney wrote the court as follows:
Upon motion of plaintiffs, the trial court again set the case for trial--this time on April 28, 1959, but no attorney appearing on behalf of the town it was vacated.
The record indicates that a trial date for June 11, 1959, was later vacated at the request of defendant's attorney and both parties joined in a stipulation to that effect. Another notice for trial was given by plaintiffs and another order setting a trial date was entered. Again defendant's attorney did not appear at the hearing and the court set the trial for June 14, 1960. On June 8, 1960, six days before the final trial date, defendant filed its motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b)(1), R.C.P.Colo. This was the first occasion such motion was filed. The pertinent paragraph of the motion reads as follows:
'That no action has been taken in this cause since the Fall of 1953, by any of the parties hereto, until the month of December 1957, when J. Fred Schneider, as the attorney for C. L. Thomas, one of the Petitioners, attempted to enter his appearance herein, and that this court should now dismiss this action for lack of prosecution, upon the ground that Petitioners, and each of them, have been guilty of gross laches and inexcusable delay and neglect in prosecuting the same and that by the afore-mentioned stipulation the above entitled civil cause is dismissed or should have been dismissed.'
The trial court granted this motion and in ruling thereon noted as follows:
During the hearing on defendant's motion the court commented as follows:
It is well established that it is within the sound discretion of the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boston v. Buchanan
...Trading Co. v. Woodie Ayers Chevrolet, Inc., 1988 OK 133, 765 P.2d 782, we quoted with approval from Cervi v. Town of Greenwood Village, 147 Colo. 190, 362 P.2d 1050 (1961), and we stated "although a trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case for want of prosecution, such power is not......
-
Lake Meredith Reservoir Co. v. Amity Mut. Irr. Co.
...a claim for failure to prosecute. Rudd v. Rogerson, 152 Colo. 370, 374, 381 P.2d 995, 998 (1963); Cervi v. Town of Greenwood Village, 147 Colo. 190, 193, 362 P.2d 1050, 1052 (1961). This power is reinforced by C.R.C.P. 41(b)(1), which recognizes that a court may dismiss a claim on a defenda......
-
Curry v. Zag Built LLC
...Currys contend that Zag Built waived this issue because it waited too long to raise it. They rely on Cervi v. Town of Greenwood Village , 147 Colo. 190, 193–94, 362 P.2d 1050, 1053 (1961), in which our supreme court held that the defendants had waived their laches argument because they had ......
-
Cornelius v. River Ridge Ranch Landowners
...at 1344. The power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is in the sound discretion of the trial court. Cervi v. Town of Greenwood Village, 147 Colo. 190, 193, 362 P.2d 1050, 1052 (1961). Trial courts retain the discretion to dismiss an action with or without prejudice.4 C.R.C.P. 41(b). The b......
-
Rule 41 DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS.
...a case in due course without unusual delay. Koon v. Barmettler, 134 Colo. 221, 301 P.2d 713 (1956); Cervi v. Town of Greenwood Vill., 147 Colo. 190, 362 P.2d 1050 (1961). The burden is on the plaintiff to prosecute a case in due course and without unusual delays. BA Leasing Corp. v. Bd. of ......