Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

THOMAS K. MEREDITH AND ROSE N. MEREDITH, APPELLANTS, v. VIRGIE L. SPEKKER ARDEN AND JOHN ARDEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

OPINION

Per Curiam:

This action was dismissed for failure to prosecute within five years. NRCP 41 (e). The complaint was filed August 18, 1965. Nine and three-quarters years elapsed without the action coming to trial. Now appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion to dismiss.

This court holds once again that a period of delay between the filing of the complaint and trial which exceeds five years mandates dismissal. Under NRCP 41 (e) dismissal is required without regard to any exercise of discretion on the part of the trial judge. In the absence of a written stipulation extending the time for trial, the trial court properly granted the motion. Monroe, Ltd. v. Central Telephone Co., 91 Nev. 450, 538 P.2d 152 (1975); Trail v. Faretto, 91 Nev. 401, 536 P.2d 1026 (1975); Lighthouse v. Great W. Land and Cattle, 88 Nev. 55, 493 P.2d 296 (1972); Lindauer v. Allen, 85 Nev. 430, 456 P.2d 851 (1969).

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MEREDITH v. ARDEN
(Nov 10, 1976)