Kromat v. Vestevich
| Decision Date | 26 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 4852,2 |
| Parties | Mary Bowen KROMAT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter VESTEVICH, Charles W. Curtis, and Alfred Platz, d/b/a Vet's Cab Company, Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frederick J. Prost, Royal Oak, for appellant.
George F. Clark, Davidson, Gotshall, Kelly, Halsey & Kohn, Detroit, for Platz.
Matthew A. Seward, Garan, Lucow & Miller, Detroit, for Vestevich.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and ROBINSON *, JJ.
Plaintiff's cause of action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the court's pretrial statement.
The court's pretrial summary is an important document and as provided in GCR 1963, 301.3, 'The summary of results controls the susbequent course of the action unless modified at or before trial to prevent manifest injustice.'
GCR 1963, 504.2 states, 'For failure of the plaintiff 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.'
To have any effectiveness in the orderly process of litigation, a pretrial statement, when signed by the judge, must be considered an order of the court. The judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the motion.
Affirmed. Costs to defendants.
* RICHARD E. ROBINSON, Circuit Judge for the County of Eaton, appointed by the Supreme Court for the hearing month of November, 1968, pursuant to § 306 P.A.1964, No. 281.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. Sobel, Docket No. 20134
...declared 'orthopedic surgeons as to standard of care'. The pretrial summary which is an order of the court, see Kromat v. Vestevich, 14 Mich.App. 291, 165 N.W.2d 428 (1968), directed plaintiff to furnish to defendant, within 15 days thereof, the identity of his expert. The allotted time pas......
-
Marquette v. Village of Fowlerville
...the briefs amounts to a violation of an "order of the court" and thus is within the scope of the court rule. Kromat v. Vestevich, 14 Mich.App. 291, 292, 165 N.W.2d 428 (1968). In determining whether the trial court's dismissal under GCR 1963, 504.2 was proper, this Court is limited to an ex......
-
Banaszewski v. Colman
...a failure occurs, the trial judge must have the discretion to enforce his orders by appropriate sanctions. See Kromat v. Vestevich, 14 Mich.App. 291, 165 N.W.2d 428 (1968). In attempting to determine if the trial judge abused his discretion by dismissing plaintiff's complaint, we have revie......
-
Ashley v. St. Joseph Mercy Hospital of Detroit
...in the filing of an amended complaint, denied the request, and granted defendant's summary judgment. As stated in Kromat v. Vestevich (1968), Mich.App., 165 N.W.2d 428, the pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of action in a case. The statement must be considered an order of th......