From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kromat v. Vestevich

Michigan Court of Appeals
Nov 26, 1968
14 Mich. App. 291 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)

Opinion

Docket No. 4,852.

Decided November 26, 1968.

Appeal from Macomb, Gallagher (Edward J.), J. Submitted Division 2 November 14, 1968, at Lansing. (Docket No. 4,852.) Decided November 26, 1968.

Complaint by Mary Bowen Kromat against Peter Vestevich, Charles W. Curtis, and Alfred Platz, to recover for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident. Action dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Frederick J. Prost, for plaintiff on appeal.

Davidson, Gotshall, Halsey, Kohl, Nelson, Secrest Wardle, for defendants.


Plaintiff's cause of action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the court's pretrial statement.

The court's pretrial summary is an important document and as provided in GCR 1963, 301.3, "The summary of results controls the subsequent course of the action unless modified at or before trial to prevent manifest injustice."

GCR 1963, 504.2 states, "For failure of the plaintiff to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against him."

To have any effectiveness in the orderly process of litigation, a pretrial statement, when signed by the judge, must be considered an order of the court. The judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the motion.

Affirmed. Costs to defendants.

FITZGERALD, P.J., and R.B. BURNS and ROBINSON, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Kromat v. Vestevich

Michigan Court of Appeals
Nov 26, 1968
14 Mich. App. 291 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)
Case details for

Kromat v. Vestevich

Case Details

Full title:KROMAT v. VESTEVICH

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 26, 1968

Citations

14 Mich. App. 291 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)
165 N.W.2d 428

Citing Cases

Thorne v. Carter

Where such a failure occurs, the trial judge must have the discretion to enforce his orders by appropriate…

Murphy v. Sobel

The record discloses that plaintiff did not respond to an interrogatory propounded to him by defendant on…