Ham v. Dunmire

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ham v. Dunmire

855 So. 2d 1238, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15391, 2003 WL 22331234

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 14, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-4564

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 855 So. 2d 1238 (Ham v. Dunmire) 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

Ham v. Dunmire, 855 So. 2d 1238, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15391, 2003 WL 22331234 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As a sanction for failing to furnish a witness list, failing to list or exchange exhibits, and failing to answer interrogatories timely, even after an agreed order compelling the answers had been entered, the trial court dismissed appellant’s complaint with prejudice.

Although the party herself was in no way at fault, we affirm the judgment of dismissal, certifying conflict with the Third District on this point. See Marin v. Batista, 639 So.2d 630, 630-31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“Consequently, since the record reflects absolutely no malfeasance on the part of the appellant, we find that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the appellant’s case.”); Dave’s Aluminum Siding, Inc. v. C & M Ventures, 582 So.2d [1239]*1239147, 147-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Herr, 589 So.2d 542, 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Affirmed.

BARFIELD, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

As a sanction for failing to furnish a witness list, failing to list or exchange exhibits, and failing to answer interrogatories timely, even after an agreed order compelling the answers had been entered, the trial court dismissed appellant’s complaint with prejudice.

Although the party herself was in no way at fault, we affirm the judgment of dismissal, certifying conflict with the Third District on this point. See Marin v. Batista, 639 So.2d 630, 630-31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“Consequently, since the record reflects absolutely no malfeasance on the part of the appellant, we find that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the appellant’s case.”); Dave’s Aluminum Siding, Inc. v. C & M Ventures, 582 So.2d [1239]*1239147, 147-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Herr, 589 So.2d 542, 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Affirmed.

BARFIELD, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

855 So. 2d 1238, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15391, 2003 WL 22331234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ham-v-dunmire-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack