Henson v. Whorf
This text of 466 So. 2d 23 (Henson v. Whorf) 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.
Opinion
Marion E. HENSON and Malba H. Brown, Appellants,
v.
Charles F. WHORF, et al., Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
*24 Bonnie S. Newton, Seminole, for appellants.
John Russell, Homosassa Springs, and W.T. Green, Crystal River, for appellees, Whorf.
PER CURIAM.
It was error to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute (Rule 1.420(e), Fla.R. Civ.P.) when it is clear that there was record activity within the year preceding the filing of appellee's motion to dismiss. Nektaredes v. Sagonias, 432 So.2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Even had it been proper to do so, a dismissal under that rule should be without prejudice. Bair v. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., 387 So.2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
The order of dismissal is
REVERSED.
ORFINGER, FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
466 So. 2d 23, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henson-v-whorf-fladistctapp-1985.