Court Opinion

ID: 9679166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:43:10.314093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:10.957375
License: Public Domain

BECKER, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result.
I do not agree with the majority statement in the seventh paragraph of Division II that the dismissal was mandatory when the trial was not held as scheduled on *684February 11, 1969. On the contrary, as I read the statute, once the case was continued over beyond January 1, rule 215.1 could not be used for dismissal for the balance of the fiscal year.
The rule reads, “All such cases (where rule 215.1, R.C.P. notice has been given) shall be assigned and tried or dismissed without prejudice at plaintiff’s costs unless satisfactory reasons for want of prosecution or grounds for continuance be shown * * (Emphasis added.) The reasons were shown when the order for continuance to a date certain was entered. The case was thereby brought within the exception and taken out of rule 215.1 operation. A new August 15 notice must be given to reactivate rule 215.1.
If this is so the order of May 13, 1969 dismissing the case was erroneous and the motion to reopen or the motion to reinstate should have been granted. No discretion would be involved. The result is the same as reached by the majority but the distinction is important. I therefore concur in the result only.
LeGRAND, J., joins in this special concurrence.