European X-Ray Distributors of America, Inc. v. Saab-Scania Aktiebolag

District Court of Appeal of Florida

European X-Ray Distributors of America, Inc. v. Saab-Scania Aktiebolag

414 So. 2d 4, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19807

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 13, 1982

DocketNo. 81-283

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 414 So. 2d 4 (European X-Ray Distributors of America, Inc. v. Saab-Scania Aktiebolag) 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

European X-Ray Distributors of America, Inc. v. Saab-Scania Aktiebolag, 414 So. 2d 4, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19807 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

No error or abuse of discretion has been demonstrated with respect to the trial court’s order striking defendant’s pleadings and entering default judgment. See Pinakatt v. Mercy Hospital, Inc., 394 So.2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Overseas Equipment Co., Inc. v. Aceros Arquitectonicos, 374 So.2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Burroughs Corp. v. White Lumber Sales, Inc., 372 So.2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). The order expressly recites, and the record conclusively reveals, that the repeated failure of defendant’s president to appear for deposition, after being so directed by the trial court, Remington Construction Co., Inc. vs. Hamilton Electric, Inc., 181 So.2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), was a flagrant violation of discovery rules. See Santuoso v. McGrath & Associates, Inc., 385 So.2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Ramos v. Sanchez, 375 So.2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Accordingly, the judgment under review is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

No error or abuse of discretion has been demonstrated with respect to the trial court’s order striking defendant’s pleadings and entering default judgment. See Pinakatt v. Mercy Hospital, Inc., 394 So.2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Overseas Equipment Co., Inc. v. Aceros Arquitectonicos, 374 So.2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Burroughs Corp. v. White Lumber Sales, Inc., 372 So.2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). The order expressly recites, and the record conclusively reveals, that the repeated failure of defendant’s president to appear for deposition, after being so directed by the trial court, Remington Construction Co., Inc. vs. Hamilton Electric, Inc., 181 So.2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), was a flagrant violation of discovery rules. See Santuoso v. McGrath & Associates, Inc., 385 So.2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Ramos v. Sanchez, 375 So.2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Accordingly, the judgment under review is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

414 So. 2d 4, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/european-x-ray-distributors-of-america-inc-v-saab-scania-aktiebolag-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack