Court Opinion

ID: 9538048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:28:59.701819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:24.213582
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Associate Chief Justice:
(dissenting).
I dissent. The majority places all of the responsibility upon counsel for plaintiffs to bring the case to final judgment within two years. I view it as a shared responsibility between plaintiffs’ counsel and court personnel. It appears to me that plaintiffs’ counsel used due diligence in twice reminding the trial judge and court personnel that the case must be set for trial before May 30, 1986. Because that was not done, the majority allows plaintiffs to be dismissed out of court with plaintiffs’ counsel absorbing all of the blame and court personnel taking none.
It must be remembered that plaintiffs’ counsel had no direct control over the scheduling of cases. That function was entirely in .the hands of court personnel. Because plaintiffs’ counsel used due diligence in endeavoring to have the case set for trial within the two-year period but court personnel failed to do so, I would not penalize plaintiffs. It is true that plaintiffs’ counsel might have reminded court personnel a third time, but I do not believe that plaintiffs should lose their case be*475cause of his failure to do something which should have been quite unnecessary.
STEWART, J., concurs.