Did the court of appeals err in denying plaintiff's right to a jury trial

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the court of appeals manifestly err in affirming the trial court’s erroneous order that denied plaintiff his constitutional right to a jury trial under us const am 7 and 1963 mich const, art. 1, sec. 14 by dismissing his case with prejudice as a sanction on the ground that plaintiff was not present in the courtroom on the morning of the date of the | jury trial without considering any of the factors set forth in vicencio v ramirez, 211 mich | app 501; 536 nw2d 280 (1995). | | | . | LISTOF PARTIES — . ' 1, STEPHEN KANTOS PETITIONER 2. LEONARD MAJOR, BARBARA MAJOR, AQUA SHORES MARINA, AQUA Shores MANAGEMENT, INC., and SILVER SHORES, INC., RESPONDENTS | | | |