 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Veteto v. Swanson Services Corp.12/30/2003
teto acknowledges that he could have had it notarized on the following day, yet chose to wait until December 31, 2002, after his case was dismissed for want of prosecution, to attempt a notarization before the same notary who had offered to notarize his document on December 4. As already explained, however, even if timely "notarized," the version of the "deposition" Veteto tendered would not have been admissible because of the Veteto's noncompliance with either Rule 30 or 31.
A dismissal for want of prosecution "'is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and its judgment will be reversed on appeal only if there is an abuse of that discretion.'" Feagin, supra, 837 So. 2d at 860 (quoting M.J.F. v. J.W., 680 So. 2d 302, 303 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996)). This Court has held likewise in a number of cases, observing that a trial court has the inherent power to dismiss a cause for a want of prosecution and that the dismissal will be reversed only if it is shown that the trial court exceeded its discretion in dismissing the cause. Riddlesprigger v. Ervin, 519 So. 2d 486 (Ala. 1987); and Burdeshaw v. White, 585 So. 2d 842 (Ala. 1991). We conclude that the trial judge did not exceed his discretion in dismissing Veteto's claims against Swanson for want of prosecution at the scheduled trial date, given the state of the record at that time.
AFFIRMED.
See, Brown, Johnstone, and Stuart, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|