continuances - exercise/abuse of discretion
Gillespie v. Penn DOT - Commonwealth Court - November 2, 2005
Held, the trial court erred by refusing to exercise its discretion to consider a request for a continuance based solely on a standing policy that all parties must agree to a continuance.
"Blind adherence" to an establishing policy is the opposite of the required exercise of discretion, which is an informed decision between multiple courses of action. Instead, the court "essentially delegated its decision-making function to the attorneys....We can think of no clearer example of an abuse of discretion than abdication of the judge's role to an interested party. The trial court's continuance policy....is manifestly unreasonable." It was an abuse of discretionto blindly apply the policy and refuse to consider the merits of the moving party's request.
MidPenn Legal Services