Legal Opinion

Cook v. Haynes

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided September 5, 1979No. Docket 78-3507PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtM. F. Cavanagh, P. J.

The pertinent facts in this dispute are succinctly stated in our brother’s opinion. Further amplification at this point is unnecessary. We write to state the reasons for which we would reverse the court below.

It is clear from case law that the failure of an attorney to appear after due notice has been given is sufficient grounds for involuntary nonsuit, and that the purpose of permitting a court to dismiss a case on such grounds is to foster judicial control over the docket. Cavataio v City-Wide Cleaners and Dryers, Inc, 23 Mich App 419, 422; 178 NW2d 831 (1970), lv den 383 Mich 806 (1970).…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hormel v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Banta v. SerbanMichigan Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Macarthur Patton Christian Ass'n v. Farm Bureau Insurance GroupMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Heins v. SutphinMichigan Court of Appeals · 1977
  5. Cavataio v. CITY-WIDE CLEANERS AND DYERS, INC.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1970

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re Darryl D.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
  2. Comstock Construction Co. v. LHG Investment Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. Cook v. HaynesMichigan Court of Appeals · 1979

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API