0% found this document useful (0 votes)
116 views

Courts Obligation

The court suspended proceedings in a case instead of dismissing it after granting a plea in abatement, though when the basis is lack of subject matter jurisdiction the court must dismiss without prejudice rather than suspend the action.

Uploaded by

lee sands
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
116 views

Courts Obligation

The court suspended proceedings in a case instead of dismissing it after granting a plea in abatement, though when the basis is lack of subject matter jurisdiction the court must dismiss without prejudice rather than suspend the action.

Uploaded by

lee sands
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

[14,15] However, instead of dismissing the case, the court suspended

the proceedings. Generally, a court has discretion whether to dismiss a


case after it grants a plea in abatement, thereby precluding further
prosecution of the action, or to not dismiss the action and suspend the
proceedings pending the outcome of the other case. Kinsey v. Colfer,
Lyons, supra. When, however, the basis for the plea in abatement is the
court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court is obligated to
dismiss without prejudice, rather than to suspend the action. Thus, the
district court should have dismissed the action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

You might also like