Hersey v. Batchelor
This text of 433 So. 2d 558 (Hersey v. Batchelor) 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
The narrow issue presented by this appeal is whether an opinion and mandate of an appellate court, when filed in the trial court, constitutes record activity so as to preclude a dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) (1980).1 The trial court dismissed the action, notwithstanding the filing in the trial court of the opinion and mandate of this court resulting from an earlier appeal within the one-year period immediately prior to the filing of the motion to dismiss. We reverse.
The filing of the opinion and mandate of this court following the earlier appeal from a non-final order constituted activity of record as defined by the rule. See Ortiz v. Biscayne Medical Center, Inc., 385 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Murphy White Dairy, Inc. v. Simmons, 405 So.2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). It is an order of court which, if filed within the one-year period prior to the filing of the motion to dismiss, precludes dismissal under the rule for failure to prosecute.
The order dismissing the action is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
433 So. 2d 558, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hersey-v-batchelor-fladistctapp-1983.