Dufrene v. Slade


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CA-01875-COA
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-10-2009
Opinion Author: ISHEE, J.
Holding: AFFIRMED
Additional Case Information: Topic: Injunctive relief - Notice of trial - Agreed order - M.R.C.P. 40
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS - OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-22-2008
Appealed from: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
Judge: Sebe Dale, Jr.
Disposition: JUDGMENT FOR RANDALL A. SLADE, KEN W. SLADE AND RODNEY G. SLADE
Case Number: 07-0450-GN-D
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: KEVIN DUFRENE




 WILLIAM L. DUCKER



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief
    		•
    Appellee: RANDALL A. SLADE, KEN W. SLADE AND RODNEY G. SLADE JACK PARSONS, BENJAMIN H. HOLLAND, TADD PARSONS  
    Synopsis provided by:

    If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
    hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.
    Topic: Injunctive relief - Notice of trial - Agreed order - M.R.C.P. 40
    Summary of the Facts: Randall Slade, Ken Slade, and Rodney Slade filed a complaint for injunction and other equitable relief against Kevin Dufrene. Dufrene never appeared before the court and the case proceeded without him. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the Slades. Dufrene filed a motion to set aside the judgment which the court denied. Dufrene appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: M.R.C.P. 40 establishes an orderly but flexible method of scheduling cases for trial, while assuring that the parties receive appropriate notice at important stages of the process. Rule 40(c) allows parties to agree to the date of trial. The comment makes clear that the parties are not bound to follow the formalities of Rule 40(a) and (b), but may agree upon a trial date. Since Dufrene admittedly signed the agreed order setting the trial for August 19, 2008, he had sufficient notice of his trial. Dufrene’s presence at the hearing for setting the trial date was sufficient notice to satisfy Rule 40(b), and his agreement to reschedule the trial date was explicitly allowed under Rule 40(c). Although Dufrene argues that he should have received confirmation of the trial date from the Slades, there was no obligation for them to do so, and Dufrene never sought any such confirmation.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court