Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

29 F. Supp. 991

Botkins v. Sorter

U.S. District Court

Decided September 15, 1939

U.S. District Court · decided 1939-09-15

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1939-09-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1980

2 state decisions

10193919401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

DAWKINS, District Judge.

¶1This suit was filed October 29, 1938, and is for injuries to the plaintiff, for medical expenses alleged to have been incurred, and for damages to an automobile.

¶2On November 28th of the same year, Mrs. Maudie Sorter was allowed to be made party defendant and on the day following, defendant Ray Sorter filed a motion to dismiss and for a bill of particulars or a more definite statement of the cause of action; and on December 20th a similar motion was filed by Mrs. Sorter.

¶3These motions were heard by Judge Porterie, March 3, 1939, at which time, the'“motion for a bill of particulars (was sustained) and” it was “ordered that bill be filed within fifteen days; bond for costs ordered filed when case is fixed for trial.”

¶4On May 16, 1939, a further motion was filed by the defendants in which attention was called to the fact that the plaintiffs had been on March 3, 1939, directed to file a bill of particulars within fifteen days, which had not been done, and for which reason it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

¶5On June 23, 1939, this last motion was submitted to the writer of this opinion.

¶6The Clerk called attention of counsel to the fact that no briefs or other pleas had been filed in regard thereto, and on August 25 counsel for plaintiffs wrote that they did not intend to file briefs, but submitted the matter upon the fact of the motion, copy of which letter is attached to the record and indicates that copies were likewise sent Messrs. Lacy, Pripe and Williams, 117% Fredonid Street, Longview, Texas, and to C. J. Bolin, Giddens-Lane Building, Shreveport, Louisiana, attorneys for the plaintiffs. Nothing further has been heard from the parties or any of their counsel.

¶7Under the circumstances, the delays have long since expired for the filing of a bill of particulars as directed by the Court, and I am of the view that there is no other alternative but to sustain the motion and to dismiss the suit.

¶8Proper decree should be presented.

/29/fsupp/991 · .json · Public domain