Court Opinion

ID: 9584238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:45:47.080378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:13.494840
License: Public Domain

KLEINSCHMIDT, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent for two reasons. While I agree the appellant never stipulated that the clerk mailed the notice of impending dismissal to Samuel Ishmael, his reply brief *194virtually concedes that when the matter was presented to the trial court everyone, including the judge, assumed that such was the case. It appears to me that had the issue been brought to proper focus the appellees might have been able to supply the proof the majority now finds missing.
Nor do I agree that the affidavit of Mr. Ishmael’s former secretary is as strong as characterized. She simply says that she would have noted mail addressed to Mr. Ishmael and has no recollection of receiving such a document. She says nothing about what was done with Mr. Ishmael’s correspondence or that any search for the item was undertaken with negative results. Under the circumstances, I do not believe the trial judge abused his discretion.