We find this unpersuasive. This litigation has been going on for four years. Plaintiffs previously appealed to this Court from a grant of defendants' motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of a first trial. In an unpublished opinion filed 16 June 1998, we held that the directed verdict motion had been improperly granted. Plaintiffs would surely have known that a second trial was then imminent.
Changed conditions are indeed a significant factor in considering a motion to continue.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial judge committed no abuse of discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for a continuance. No prejudicial error. Judge WYNN concurs in part and dissents in part. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part unavailable.