Ferguson v. Carter

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ferguson v. Carter

520 So. 2d 706, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 584, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 735, 1988 WL 16018

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1428

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 520 So. 2d 706 (Ferguson v. Carter) 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

Ferguson v. Carter, 520 So. 2d 706, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 584, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 735, 1988 WL 16018 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

The trial court clerk’s progress docket in this case indicates that during the year preceding the motion and order of dismissal for failure to prosecute, the clerk issued a subpoena for production of documents under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351. This is sufficient record activity to preclude dismissal under Rule 1.420(e). Cf. Biscayne Construction Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 388 So.2d 329 (Fla.3d DCA 1980) (clerk’s docket indicating issuance of a pluries summons is sufficient record activity to defeat a motion to dismiss under Rule 1.420(e)). The order of dismissal is reversed and this case is remanded with instructions to reinstate.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COBB and DANIEL, JJ., concur.

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

COWART, Judge.

The trial court clerk’s progress docket in this case indicates that during the year preceding the motion and order of dismissal for failure to prosecute, the clerk issued a subpoena for production of documents under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351. This is sufficient record activity to preclude dismissal under Rule 1.420(e). Cf. Biscayne Construction Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 388 So.2d 329 (Fla.3d DCA 1980) (clerk’s docket indicating issuance of a pluries summons is sufficient record activity to defeat a motion to dismiss under Rule 1.420(e)). The order of dismissal is reversed and this case is remanded with instructions to reinstate.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COBB and DANIEL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 So. 2d 706, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 584, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 735, 1988 WL 16018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferguson-v-carter-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack