Gray v. Sunburst Sanitation Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gray v. Sunburst Sanitation Corp.

932 So. 2d 439, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 7745, 2006 WL 1329497

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 17, 2006

DocketNo. 4D05-1414

StatusPublished

This text of 932 So. 2d 439 (Gray v. Sunburst Sanitation Corp.) 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

Gray v. Sunburst Sanitation Corp., 932 So. 2d 439, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 7745, 2006 WL 1329497 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals an order dismissing her case upon a finding that she indisputably committed a fraud on the court through perjured testimony, which in turn resulted in the loss of evidence necessary to the defense. The trial judge recognized that “dismissal is the most severe of all possible sanctions” and should be employed only in “extreme circumstances.” Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Moreover, the judge also, acknowledged that dismissal may be imposed as a sanction for litigation misconduct “only on a ‘clear showing of fraud, pretense, collusion or similar wrongdoing.’ ” Bob Montgomery Real Estate v. Djokic, 858 So.2d 371, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) [c.o.]. He also found the evidence clear and convincing. Piunno v. R.F. Concrete Constr., Inc., 904 So.2d 658, 658-59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). We have carefully examined the record and áre unable to find that the trial judge abused his discretion.

Affirmed.

STONE, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals an order dismissing her case upon a finding that she indisputably committed a fraud on the court through perjured testimony, which in turn resulted in the loss of evidence necessary to the defense. The trial judge recognized that “dismissal is the most severe of all possible sanctions” and should be employed only in “extreme circumstances.” Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Moreover, the judge also, acknowledged that dismissal may be imposed as a sanction for litigation misconduct “only on a ‘clear showing of fraud, pretense, collusion or similar wrongdoing.’ ” Bob Montgomery Real Estate v. Djokic, 858 So.2d 371, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) [c.o.]. He also found the evidence clear and convincing. Piunno v. R.F. Concrete Constr., Inc., 904 So.2d 658, 658-59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). We have carefully examined the record and áre unable to find that the trial judge abused his discretion.

Affirmed.

STONE, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

932 So. 2d 439, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 7745, 2006 WL 1329497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-sunburst-sanitation-corp-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack