Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantjurisdictionstatuteappealstatute of limitations
plaintiffdefendantjurisdictionstatuteappealmotionwillstatute of limitations

Related Cases

Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457, 77 S.Ct. 1344, 1 L.Ed.2d 1485
View Case »
People v. Clauson, 231 Cal.App.2d 374, 41 Cal.Rptr. 691
View Case »
Comptroller of the Treasury v. World Inns, Inc., 310 Md. 154, 528 A.2d 477
View Case »
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 65 L.Ed.2d 665
View Case »
In re 1975 Tax Assessments Against Oneida Coal Co., 178 W.Va. 485, 360 S.E.2d 560
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Stewart v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 39 Mich.App. 360, 197 N.W.2d 465

Facts

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on June 1, 1970, regarding an incident that occurred on December 19, 1966. The defendants argued that the action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations. A previous lawsuit between the same parties was filed on March 13, 1968, and dismissed without prejudice on December 19, 1968. The plaintiffs contended that the statute of limitations should be tolled for the duration of the previous suit.

Plaintiffs asserted in their answer to the defendants' motions for accelerated judgment that a previous law suit between the same parties and based upon the same facts was commenced on March 13, 1968, in the Macomb County Circuit Court; and that all the parties were subject to the jurisdiction of that court, defendant Michigan Bell Telephone Company answering plaintiffs' complaint on April 24, 1968, and defendant George A. Odien, Inc., answering on April 23, 1968. The said cause of action was dismissed on December 19, 1968, without prejudice.

Issue

Whether the statute of limitations was tolled for the period that the Macomb County Circuit Court had jurisdiction over the previous suit between the same parties.

The only question presented on this appeal is whether under the facts in this case the statute of limitations was tolled for the period of time that the Macomb County Circuit Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action.

Rule

M.C.L.A. s 600.5856 provides that the statute of limitations is tolled for the period of time that a court has jurisdiction over a defendant in a prior action that is dismissed without prejudice.

In the event of the dismissal, on some ground other than on the merits (as for example—lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter) of an action in which jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired, the period of time from the time of service or the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant until dismissal will not count as a part of the time of limitation, for during such time the statute has been tolled.

Analysis

The court analyzed the tolling statute and determined that since the previous suit was dismissed without prejudice, the statute of limitations was indeed tolled during the time the court had jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the dismissal did not adjudicate the merits of the case, allowing the plaintiffs to refile their action within the tolled period.

We conclude that plaintiffs' case is within the letter of the tolling statute and that the statute of limitations was tolled for the period of time that the Macomb County Circuit Court had jurisdiction over the defendants. This is true because the Macomb County Circuit Court action was not dismissed on its merits, but was dismissed without prejudice.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the statute of limitations was tolled for the period of 7 months and 25 days while the previous suit was pending, and thus the plaintiffs' current action was timely filed. The decision of the Circuit Court was reversed and the case was remanded.

We are constrained to rule that the statute of limitations was tolled for the period of time that the Macomb County Circuit Court had jurisdiction over the defendants, or for the period of 7 months, 25 days; and further that the commencement of the present suit was timely.

Who won?

Plaintiffs prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the statute of limitations was tolled during the previous suit, allowing their current action to proceed.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting accelerated judgment of no cause of action in favor of defendants, and dismissing plaintiffs' action due to the running of the statute of limitations.

You must be