Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co.
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
*557Opinion
KAUS, J.
I
In Weeks v. Roberts (1968) 68 Cal.2d 802, 807-808 [69 Cal.Rptr. 305, 442 P.2d 361], we held that where a plaintiff moves to specially set a case for trial in order to avoid dismissal under the five-year rule (Code Civ. Proc., § 583, subd. (b))1 and the “court feels impelled to dismiss an action less than five years after its filing for want of prosecution, it should do so and accept review on that basis. It should not exercise its discretion to dismiss on the basis of inconvenience to the court and in the guise of a refusal to specially set.” We went on to chastise the trial…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Denham v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Sanborn v. Chronicle Publishing Co.California Supreme Court · 1976
- Weeks v. RobertsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Tate v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Farrar v. McCormickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by77 opinions
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- Landry v. Berryessa Union School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Salas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.California Supreme Court · 1986
- Hurtado v. Statewide Home Loan Co.California Court of Appeal · 1985
- Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.