LLOYD v. SUPERIOR COURT

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 32546.

Attorney(S)

Minnick Hahner, for relator. Cameron Sherwood and Robert A. Comfort, for respondent.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Three damage actions arose from a series of automobile collisions occurring when the parties drove into a cloud of dust. The superior court denied consolidation. One action was tried and was pending on appeal; the relator was not a party to that action, although the respondent was. [1]

The superior court stayed trial of the relator’s pending action until the appeal in the other action was determined. The relator sought certiorari review, and the Washington Supreme Court reviewed the stay order. [2][3]

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by staying the relator’s pending action until resolution of an appeal in another action arising from the same automobile accident. [3]
Whether the stay denied the relator the right to an early trial as permitted by the due administration of the court’s business. [4]

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State ex rel. Sperry v. Superior Court, 41 Wn.2d 670, 251 P.2d 164	The cited decision affirmed the denial of consolidation of the related actions.	The court identified the prior decision as part of the procedural history but did not rely on it to resolve the stay issue. [1]

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

A trial court has authority to stay one action while an appeal from another action is pending. Whether to grant such a stay ordinarily lies within the trial court’s discretion, and appellate intervention is warranted only upon an abuse of that discretion. [5]

The court acknowledged that it is reluctant to find an abuse of discretion because the trial court has superior knowledge of the matter before it. After reviewing the materials presented, however, the court concluded that the stay denied the relator a trial as early as the proper administration of the court’s business reasonably allowed. [4]

The court further determined that the reasons supporting the stay were insufficient to justify it. [4]

Holding and Implications

The stay order was reversed. The relator’s action could not remain stayed pending the appeal in the separate action because the stay constituted an abuse of discretion. [6]

The direct effect was to remove the stay of trial in the relator’s case. The opinion discusses no broader implications, and no new precedent was set.

Show full summary ...

R.C. LLOYD, Relator, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR WALLA WALLA COUNTY, Albert N. Bradford, Judge, Respondent. Reported in 259 P.2d 369.

ACTION — STAY OF PROCEEDINGS — ANOTHER ACTION PENDING — DISCRETION OF COURT. The granting of a motion to stay the trial of an action pending an appeal from a judgment in another action, is within the discretion of the court; and its ruling will not be disturbed unless it appears that such discretion was abused.

SAME. An order staying the trial of an action pending an appeal from a judgment in another action held to have denied the plaintiff the right to as early a trial of his action as the due administration of the business of the court reasonably will permit and to constitute an abuse of discretion.

See 3 Am. Jur. 198.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the court upon an alternative writ of certiorari and the return thereto. The question presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in entering an order staying the trial of a pending case until there had been a determination in this court of an appeal taken in another action arising out of an automobile accident in which several persons and motor vehicles were involved.

Three damage actions were brought in the superior court for Walla Walla county arising out of a series of collisions when the respective parties drove their motor vehicles into a cloud of dust. The court denied an application to consolidate the actions for the purpose of trial. We affirmed the order of the court in State ex rel. Sperry v. Superior Court, 41 Wn.2d 670, 251 P.2d 164. One of the actions was tried and is now pending in this court on appeal. The relator is not a party to that action, but the defendant named in this proceeding is a party thereto.

We have considered the grounds and reasons upon which the respondent based his order staying the trial of the case in which relator is plaintiff pending the appeal from the judgment entered in the other case. Each case involving the discretion of the court in situations comparable to the one before us is so dependent upon the facts and circumstances peculiar to it that a recital thereof or a review of such grounds or cases cited would serve no useful purpose.

[1] A court has the power to stay the trial of an action pending an appeal from a judgment in another action. The granting of a motion to stay the trial of such action is within the discretion of the court, and its ruling will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless it appears that such discretion has been abused as that term is understood in legal parlance.

[2] We are always exceedingly hesitant to conclude that a trial court has abused its discretion because of its superior knowledge of the subject it has considered, but we have reviewed all that has been presented to us and are of the opinion that by its order the court has denied to relator the right to as early a trial of his action as the due administration of the business of the court reasonably will permit. We do not regard the grounds and reasons given by respondent sufficient to warrant the stay order made.

The order granting the stay of the trial of relator's action pending appeal of the other action is reversed.