Chieng v. Salazar

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chieng v. Salazar

410 So. 2d 606, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19359

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 2, 1982

DocketNo. 81-1076

StatusPublished

This text of 410 So. 2d 606 (Chieng v. Salazar) 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

Chieng v. Salazar, 410 So. 2d 606, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19359 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing her claims against defendants for failure to obtain an attorney to represent her following the court’s order allowing the withdrawal of the attorney that filed the complaint and granting her thirty days within which to employ another attorney.

Upon motion of the defendants, the trial court entered an order of dismissal, without prejudice. It is from that order that plaintiff appeals.

We hold that the trial court erred in entering the order of dismissal. Therefore we reverse. See Section 454.18, Florida Statutes; Kahn v. Milon, 332 So.2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Carr v. Grace, 321 So.2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 945 (Fla.1977).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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