Court Opinion

ID: 9630052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:58:47.788848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:32:35.590141
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, Justice,
(dissenting).
The majority opinion states:
“The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the action as to *377the State Board of Education and the State of Idaho, and thereafter sustained the motion to dismiss for lack of timely prosecution. * * * Further, on sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the action, the court had no further jurisdiction to enter a subsequent judgment dismissing the case a second time on other grounds, the first judgment of dismissal being a final judgment.” (Emphasis added.)
The transcript before us in this case discloses that the district court minutes for March 22, 1954, Book 29, p. 161, Records of Bannock County, Idaho, relative to this case, in addition to the formal parts, contain only: “Dismissed for lack of prosecution.” No mention whatsoever is made of a demurrer or ruling thereon. There is an order of dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution dated and filed March 22, 1954, and an order sustaining a demurrer and dismissing action also dated and filed March 22, 1954. Both of these orders were filed simultaneously, both being marked “Filed at 2:56 p.m.”
After the filing of the complaint January 5, 1942, and the demurrer on January 29, 1942, and striking the case from the calendar in 1943, nothing further was done until October 2, 1953, when respondents moved to reinstate the case on the court’s docket and then moved to dismiss it for lack of prosecution. Over eleven years elapsed during which appellants took no action, nor have they made any attempt to explain or excuse the unreasonable delay and failure to promptly prosecute this action.
It was not the fault of respondents that appellants were extremely dilatory, yet the majority opinion places the burden upon respondents and would require them to show they were injured by the delay of more than eleven years, rather than to require appellants to explain arid justify their own delay.
Trial courts and those who want to have prompt and speedy disposition of their cases should not be handicapped with such old cases as this one cluttering up their calendars. Cases should either be tried or dismissed within a reasonable time, or any unreasonable delay be justified by the delayer.
Section R 1-1604, I.C., provides that courts of record may make rules not inconsistent with the laws of this State for their own government and the government of their officers. In 1952, Uniform Rules of District Courts of the State of Idaho were adopted. Rule 79 thereof provides as follows:
“Any case or proceeding in which no action has been taken or in which no pleading has been filed for one year will be dismissed by the Court on the call of the calendar upon the opening day of any subsequent term, .unless good cause for retention on the calendar is shown.” (Emphasis added.)
*378In the case of Judy v. Reilly Atkinson & Co., Inc., 59 Idaho 752, at page 758, 87 P.2d 451, at page 454, the Court stated:
“The record fails to disclose any action taken in this case for more than a year prior to the entry of judgment of dismissal thereof, nor does it disclose any reason for failure on the part of appellant to prosecute the case to judgment, other than dissatisfaction with the direction to the referee as to his duties. Furthermore, I.C.A., sec. 7-705 provides:
“ ‘An action may be dismissed, or a judgment of nonsuit entered, in the following cases:
“ ‘3. By the court, when the plaintiff fails to appear on the trial, and the defendant appears and asks for the dismissal.’ ”
In my opinion, a person who files a law suit and takes no action for eleven years is presumed to have abandoned it. Even a man who disappears and is not heard from for seven years is presumed to be dead. If abandonment does not take place in eleven years, when does it? We cannot condemn and yet condone unreasonable delay.
The judgment of dismissal for lack of prosecution should be affirmed.