Stephen V. Talmage - Page 9

               On November 22, 1995, we issued an order denying                       
          petitioner's motions (1) and (3), to strike respondent's motion             
          for sanctions and to strike respondent's motion to dismiss for              
          lack of prosecution.  These motions of petitioner were clearly              
          frivolous and groundless, being based upon respondent's having              
          given petitioner copies of the motions bearing stamped                      
          signatures, although respondent had filed signed originals with             
          the Court, in compliance with Rule 23(a)(3).                                
               On December 26, 1995, this Court filed Respondent's Response           
          to Petitioner's Motion to Deny Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for           
          Lack of Prosecution, Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion to             
          Deny Respondent's Request for Sanctions.                                    
               There thus remain for disposition the following matters: (1)           
          respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and                 
          petitioner's deemed motion for summary judgment, and (2)                    
          respondent's motion for a penalty under section 6673.                       
          Issue 1. Dismissal v. Summary Judgment                                      
               This Court, like every court, has the inherent power, in the           
          exercise of its discretion, to dismiss a case for want of                   
          prosecution.  Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-632            
          (1962) (failure of counsel with history of dilatory conduct of              
          case to appear at pretrial conference); Steyr-Daimler-Puch of               
          America Corp. v. Pappas, 852 F.2d 132, 134 (4th Cir. 1988)                  
          (failure to obey numerous court orders); Ducommun v.                        
          Commissioner, 732 F.2d 752, 754 (10th Cir. 1983), affg. Orders of           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011