 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cary v. Cox2/25/2005
der these circumstances to be "accompanied by some articulation on the record of the court's resolution of the factual, legal, and discretionary issues presented." Quality Prefabrication, Inc. v. Daniel J. Keating Company, 675 F.2d 77, 81 (3d Cir. 1982). This should not be overly burdensome to the trial court, and will assist in meaningful appellate review. See CR 52.01.
The reasons for desiring some articulation of the bases for decision have special importance in this context. When such a severe sanction is imposed, values of consistency and predictability, reviewability, and deterrence, outweigh the values of economy and efficiency that may be promoted by allowing inarticulate decisions.
Quality Prefabrication, supra,at81 (citation omitted).
Then, if appealed, the trial court's decision may more intelligently be examined.
Among the factors to be considered in reviewing the imposition of sanctions for an abuse of discretion, the appellate court should consider: (1) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party's failure to cooperate in discovery, (2) whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal, and (3) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered.
Taylor v. Medtronics, Inc., 861 F.2d 980, 986 (6th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). It has also been stated that "if a party has the ability to comply with a discovery order and does not, dismissal is not an abuse of discretion." Regional Refuse Systems, Inc. v. Inland Reclamation Co., 842 F.2d 150, 154 (6th Cir. 1988).
796 S.W.2d at 869-870. We remand to the Jefferson Circuit Court for appropriate action in accordance with Greathouse.
ALL CONCUR.
|