Bolt v. Smith

594 So. 2d 864, 1992 WL 41468
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 6, 1992
Docket91-349
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 594 So. 2d 864 (Bolt v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bolt v. Smith, 594 So. 2d 864, 1992 WL 41468 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

594 So.2d 864 (1992)

Richard A. BOLT, M.D., Appellant,
v.
Alvin SMITH, M.D. and Reverend Hal Marchman, Appellees.

No. 91-349.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 6, 1992.

Donald E. Christopher and Melanie M. Ruta of Litchford, Christopher & Milbrath, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

Richard B. Rosier and John A. Wilkerson of Rosier, Ebbets, Armstrong & Morello, Daytona Beach, for appellee Alvin Smith, M.D.

Laurence H. Bartlett of Black, Crotty, Sims, Hubka, Burnett, Bartlett and Samuels, Daytona Beach, for appellee Reverend Hal Marchman.

GOSHORN, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from the trial court's order dismissing this cause for failure to prosecute pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). The record shows that a trial judge who had previously recused himself mistakenly entered an order setting the case for trial and then subsequently set aside that order. The appellees argue that these actions had the effect of a continuance and obligated the appellant (plaintiff below) to re-notice the case for trial. See Fishe & Kleeman, Inc. v. Aquarius Condominium Association, Inc., 524 So.2d 1012, 1014 (Fla. 1988). However, Florida case law is well settled that once a trial judge has recused himself, further orders of the recused judge are void and have no effect. Rogers v. State, 341 So.2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Furthermore, in Mikos v. Sarasota Cattle Co., 453 So.2d 402 (Fla. 1984), the Florida Supreme Court held that once a plaintiff gives notice of readiness for trial, the trial judge must enter an order setting a date for trial. The trial court is thereafter precluded from dismissing the action for failure to prosecute even if the plaintiff fails to take any further action. Accordingly, the duty to re-notice the case for trial never arose in the instant case.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COWART and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Doris Sheppard v. Bruce Barman and Maureen Barman
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
Green v. Branch
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2025
Hudson v. Hudson
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2024
Carson v. State
60 So. 3d 504 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Plaza v. Plaza
21 So. 3d 181 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Lake v. Lake
14 So. 3d 284 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Payton v. State
937 So. 2d 462 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2006)
Christie v. City of El Centro
37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 718 (California Court of Appeal, 2006)
Thompson v. State
134 S.W.3d 168 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2004)
Collado v. Collado
858 So. 2d 1255 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Cascone v. Foster
774 So. 2d 773 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Thomas v. State
756 So. 2d 217 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Meaweather v. State
732 So. 2d 499 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Lea v. Wigton
705 So. 2d 723 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Long Term Managmt. v. Univ. Nursing Care
704 So. 2d 669 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Dream Inn, Inc. v. Hester
691 So. 2d 555 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Whitehead v. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline
920 P.2d 491 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1996)
Ferguson v. State
594 So. 2d 864 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
594 So. 2d 864, 1992 WL 41468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolt-v-smith-fladistctapp-1992.