Court Opinion

ID: 9575340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:13:07.499749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:08.643616
License: Public Domain

BOOCHEVER, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the majority opinion, but since this case does not involve a question where the defendant has gone to considerable expense and effort, I see no reason for our taking this occasion to disapprove of the dicta in Miller v. Wilkes.1 I would prefer not to reach that issue. I can envision cases where the parties could stipulate to postponing the filing of an answer, yet go to a great deal of expense taking extensive depositions over a considerable period of time. I would rather leave open the question as to whether the plaintiff under those circumstances would be entitled to dismiss the action under Civil Rule 41(a)(1), or in the alternative, whether a court upon concluding that adherence to Rule 41(a)(1) would work an injustice may relax that rule pursuant to Civil Rule 94 which specifies:
These rules are designed to facilitate business and advance justice. They may be relaxed or dispensed with by the court in any case where it shall be manifest to the court that a strict adherence to them will work injustice.

. 496 P.2d 176, 178 n. 5 (Alaska 1972).