Cox v. Myllymaki, 87-288
| Docket Nº | No. 87-288 |
| Citation | 752 P.2d 1093, 231 Mont. 320 |
| Case Date | April 06, 1988 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
Page 1093
v.
Gilbert MYLLYMAKI, Evan H. Gray, and Eugene Myllymaki,
Defendants and Respondents.
Decided April 6, 1988.
[231 Mont. 321] Kelly A. Jenkins, Helena, George Richardson, Richardson and Richardson, Butte, for plaintiffs and appellants.
John F. Iwen, Great Falls, for defendants and respondents.
McDONOUGH, Justice.
Plaintiffs appeal the decision of the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County, granting defendants motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
The plaintiffs filed their complaint in the underlying cause on July 30, 1984. The first defendants were served on August 15, 1984. The defendants filed an answer October
Page 1094
31, 1984 and filed an amended answer five days later. In September 1984, plaintiff Cox, who along with Dunn was named as an heir in Lempi Mattila's will, filed for appointment as special administrator for the estate of Lempi Mattila. Mattila was the most recent decedent and sole heir of William Mattila, whose estate is the subject of the underlying cause. The underlying cause involved alleged improprieties in the documentary transfer of William Mattila's land and alleged subsequent fraud in the administration of Lempi Mattila's estate. Cox's petition was denied by the probate court, so she appealed the decision to the Montana Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the probate court on May 9, 1986. See In the Matter of the Estate of Lempi Mattila, Deceased (Mont.1986), 718 P.2d 343, 43 St.Rep. 797. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss for want of prosecution under M.R.Civ.P. 41(b) on December 29, 1986. On May 18, 1987 the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.The issue on appeal is whether the District Court committed reversible error when it granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 41(b). We reverse.
Rule 41(b), M.R.Civ.P., governs the dismissal of a claim for failure to prosecute.
For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against him.
[231 Mont. 322] The granting of a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute will not be overturned unless there is an abuse of discretion. "It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bilesky v. Shopko Stores Operating Co., DA 14–0201.
...for an abuse of discretion. Weaver, ¶ 19. The district court's discretion in this regard is not unlimited, however. See Cox v. Myllymaki, 231 Mont. 320, 322, 752 P.2d 1093, 1094 (1988) (trial courts' discretion is not unlimited).DISCUSSION¶ 11 Whether factual statements Appellee made in a b......
-
Bilesky v. Shopko Stores Operating Co., DA 14–0201.
...for an abuse of discretion. Weaver, ¶ 19. The district court's discretion in this regard is not unlimited, however. See Cox v. Myllymaki, 231 Mont. 320, 322, 752 P.2d 1093, 1094 (1988) (trial courts' discretion is not ¶ 11 Whether factual statements Appellee made in a brief were judicial ad......
-
ECI Credit, LLC v. Diamond S Inc., DA 17-0574
...the dismissal.¶ 49 "[C]ourts exist primarily to afford a forum to settle litigable matters between disputing parties." Cox v. Myllymaki , 231 Mont. 320, 322, 752 P.2d 1093, 1094 (1988) (internal citations omitted); Becky , 245 Mont. at 7, 798 P.2d at 1015. Accordingly, this Court encourages......
-
Becky v. Norwest Bank Dillon, N.A., 89-583
...in favor of the prompt disposition of law suits, and (4) the duty of the appellant to proceed with due diligence. In Cox v. Myllymaki, 231 Mont. 320, 322, 752 P.2d 1093, 1094 (1988), we restated and somewhat expanded the Shackelton factors. Quoting Hamilton v. Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd., 81......
-
Bilesky v. Shopko Stores Operating Co., DA 14–0201.
...for an abuse of discretion. Weaver, ¶ 19. The district court's discretion in this regard is not unlimited, however. See Cox v. Myllymaki, 231 Mont. 320, 322, 752 P.2d 1093, 1094 (1988) (trial courts' discretion is not unlimited).DISCUSSION¶ 11 Whether factual statements Appellee made in a b......
-
Bilesky v. Shopko Stores Operating Co., DA 14–0201.
...for an abuse of discretion. Weaver, ¶ 19. The district court's discretion in this regard is not unlimited, however. See Cox v. Myllymaki, 231 Mont. 320, 322, 752 P.2d 1093, 1094 (1988) (trial courts' discretion is not ¶ 11 Whether factual statements Appellee made in a brief were judicial ad......
-
ECI Credit, LLC v. Diamond S Inc., DA 17-0574
...the dismissal.¶ 49 "[C]ourts exist primarily to afford a forum to settle litigable matters between disputing parties." Cox v. Myllymaki , 231 Mont. 320, 322, 752 P.2d 1093, 1094 (1988) (internal citations omitted); Becky , 245 Mont. at 7, 798 P.2d at 1015. Accordingly, this Court encourages......
-
Becky v. Norwest Bank Dillon, N.A., 89-583
...in favor of the prompt disposition of law suits, and (4) the duty of the appellant to proceed with due diligence. In Cox v. Myllymaki, 231 Mont. 320, 322, 752 P.2d 1093, 1094 (1988), we restated and somewhat expanded the Shackelton factors. Quoting Hamilton v. Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd., 81......