UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Name: Gripe v. City of Enid
Author: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Gripe v. City of Enid (2002)

Summary

“Gripe v. City of Enid”, published in 2002, is a work by UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. It explores elements such as dismissal, attorney and plaintiff.

Quotes from Gripe v. City of Enid (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, Gripe v. City of Enid (2002)

“ Surely if a criminal defendant may be convicted because he did not have the presence of mind to repudiate his attorney's conduct in the course of a trial, a civil plaintiff may be deprived of his claim if he failed to see to it that his lawyer acted with dispatch in the prosecution of his lawsuit. And if an attorney's conduct falls substantially below what is reasonable under the circumstances, the client’s remedy is against the attorney in a suit for malpractice. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, Gripe v. City of Enid (2002)

“ Thus, the district court unquestionably considered the appropriate factors in deciding to dismiss plaintiff’s case, and its decision was not an abuse of discretion.
Plaintiff argues against the harshness of penalizing him for his attorney's conduct. But there is nothing novel here. Those who act through agents are customarily bound by their agents' mistakes. It is no different when the agent is an attorney. When an attorney drafting a contract omits an important clause, the client who signs the contract is bound. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, Gripe v. City of Enid (2002)

“ When a trial attorney is poorly prepared to cross-examine an expert witness, the client suffers the consequences. (It should be noted, however, that the mistreated client is not totally without a remedy. There may be a meritorious malpractice claim against the attorney.)
Virtually the same issue came before the Supreme Court in Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) . The Court upheld the district court's inherent power to dismiss an action with prejudice when the plaintiff’s attorney, who had a history of dilatory conduct, missed a pretrial conference without an adequate excuse. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, Gripe v. City of Enid (2002)

“ Before imposing dismissal as a sanction, a district court should ordinarily evaluate the following factors on the record: " (1) the degree of actual prejudice to the [other party] ; (2) the amount of interference with the judicial process; . . . (3) the culpability of the litigant; (4) whether the court warned the party in advance that dismissal of the action would be a likely sanction for noncompliance; and (5) the efficacy of lesser sanctions." Id. at 921 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (dismissing case as sanction for discovery violation) . ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, Gripe v. City of Enid (2002)

“ Plaintiff Roger D. Gripe appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint as a sanction for his lawyer’s repeated violations of court orders and rules. The district court denied plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment. Because the statute of limitations on his claims has expired, he cannot refile them.Plaintiff’s principal argument is that he should not be penalized for his lawyer's shortcomings. We affirm. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, Gripe v. City of Enid (2002)

“ Although the dismissal in Link was categorized as being for "failure to prosecute," the substance of the district court's ruling was essentially the same as that of the district court in this case. Justice Harlan wrote:
There is certainly no merit to the contention that dismissal of petitioner's claim because of his counsel's unexcused conduct imposes an unjust penalty on the client. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, Gripe v. City of Enid (2002)

“ Although Ehrenhaus involved sanctions for discovery violations, we have held that "Rule 41 (b) involuntary dismissals should be determined by reference to the Ehrenhaus criteria." Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337, 341 (10th Cir. 1994) . ”

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Summary

Quotes from Gripe v. City of Enid (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature