Court Opinion

ID: 9677395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:51:20.817527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:55.773230
License: Public Domain

PARRISH, Chief Judge
concurring.
I concur in the result reached in the principal opinion. As I understand the facts,1 the case was dismissed June 6, 1990. Although not notified of the dismissal by the clerk, the attorney for plaintiff learned of the dismissal July 23, 1990. This was within six months from the trial court’s order or judgment of dismissal for plaintiffs failure to prosecute. Rule 74.03 would have permitted plaintiffs attorney to file a written motion to set aside the dismissal. Had that been done, the trial court, for good cause shown, could have set aside the order or judgment of dismissal.
Plaintiffs attorney did not file a written motion to set aside the order or judgment of dismissal. Therefore, Rule 74.03 was never invoked. Further, since more than thirty days had elapsed between the date the case was dismissed, June 6,1990, and the date the trial court purported to set aside the dismissal, July 23, 1990, the trial court lacked authority to “vacate, reopen, correct, amend, or modifjf’ the order or judgment of dismissal. See Rule 75.01. The trial court’s actions relative to setting aside the original dismissal were void. For that reason, I concur in the principal opinion’s determination that the trial court’s denial of the request that the dismissal be set aside should be affirmed.

. In ascertaining the facts, it was necessary to scrutinize the computerized docket entries made by the trial court. The efficiency of computerization is obvious. However, the docket entries were not informative. The principal opinion aptly characterizes them as "cryptic entries." They are so lacking in providing information that they approach being indecipherable.