- HUMMINGS APP FULL
- HUMMINGS APP TRIAL
Shortly before trial, defendant amended its witness list to add three witnesses for testimony regarding the extent of plaintiff's injuries. At the time of the accident, the restroom was not in use, and there was evidence that it was padlocked. The post and concrete pad had once supported privacy screens that stood between the post and the wall of the restroom. Plaintiff was injured when he tripped over the remains of a metal post that protruded from a raised concrete entranceway to a public restroom. Defendant cross appeals as of right orders denying its motions for summary disposition and for a directed verdict. Plaintiff appeals as of right an order of the circuit court dismissing his claim against defendant for personal injury. See also Hanks v SLB Management, Inc, 188 Mich. We note that "ecause inherent powers are shielded from direct democratic controls, they must be exercised with restraint and discretion." Id. 752 100 S Ct 2455 65 L Ed 2d 488 (1980), plaintiff also concedes that at least one of these cases recognized the inherent authority of courts to sanction litigant misconduct, see id.
HUMMINGS APP TRIAL
Although plaintiff contends that the cases cited by the trial court in support of the order of dismissal involved violations of specific court rules or orders, see, e.g., Roadway Express, Inc v Piper, 447 U.S. See also Precision Instrument Mfg Co v Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co, 324 U.S. is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society." Hazel-Atlas Glass Co v Hartford-Empire Co, 322 U.S. "ampering with the administration of justice. The "clean hands doctrine" applies not only for the protection of the parties but also for the protection of the court. 667, 669 211 N.W.2d 101 (1973), we do not believe that the distinction prevents a court of law from invoking the "clean hands doctrine" when litigant misconduct constitutes an abuse of the judicial process itself and not just a matter of inequity between the parties. While this Court has recognized that substantive distinctions between law and equity survived the procedural merger of law and equity, see Clarke v Brunswick Corp, 48 Mich. The authority is rooted in a court's fundamental interest in protecting its own integrity and that of the judicial process. Buchanan Home Auto Supply Co v Firestone Tire Rubber Co, 544 F. 
The authority to dismiss a lawsuit for litigant misconduct is a creature of the "clean hands doctrine" and, despite its origins, is applicable to both equitable and legal damages claims. The trial court held that such authority was "inherent." It also found that plaintiff's actions justified the presumption that his claim lacked merit. Plaintiff argues that the trial court lacked authority to impose such a drastic sanction. The central issue on appeal is whether dismissal with prejudice was a proper sanction. It also denied defendant's earlier motion for a directed verdict. It had stated its intent to bring such a motion at the conference. Defendant subsequently moved for dismissal with prejudice on the basis of witness tampering. These incidents were attributed to plaintiff. Following the conference, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, during which extensive testimony was elicited and affidavits received from the witnesses regarding the threats and vandalism. Upon reconvening the case, the trial court conferred with the attorneys. 
Meanwhile, the new witnesses experienced incidents of vandalism and received numerous telephone calls and threats that they would be killed if they testified. We believe the court has inherent authority to sanction misconduct. However, it would be an absurd anomaly to recognize a court's authority to dismiss an action for lack of progress, see MCR 2.502, or for discovery abuses, see MCR 2.313, and yet leave the court impotent to control its own proceedings when they have been tainted by much more flagrant misconduct. Plaintiff urges that Michigan court rules and statutes do not adequately address a court's authority to sanction the kind of misconduct in this case. HUMMINGS APP FULL
The opportunity to be heard does not mean a full trial-like proceeding, but it does require a hearing to allow a party the chance to know and respond to the evidence. Due process in civil cases generally requires notice of the nature of the proceedings, an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and manner, and an impartial decisionmaker. Nor was dismissal a violation of plaintiff's due process rights.
0 kommentar(er)
