Howland Feed Mill, Inc. v. Hart

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Howland Feed Mill, Inc. v. Hart

774 So. 2d 962, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 446, 2001 WL 50486

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-1757

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 774 So. 2d 962 (Howland Feed Mill, Inc. v. Hart) 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

Howland Feed Mill, Inc. v. Hart, 774 So. 2d 962, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 446, 2001 WL 50486 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order by which the trial court dismissed the appellant’s action below, based on a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) failure to prosecute. The dismissal was entered upon a motion therefor made after the appellant filed a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(b) notice asserting that the case was at issue and ready for trial, and in which the appellant asked the court for an order setting the case for trial. Although the court had not yet scheduled a trial date, this case does not appear to involve any exception to the usual procedures in this regard; the appellant’s rule 1.440(b) notice thus precludes the rule 1.420(e) dismissal. See Mikos v. Sarasota Cattle Co., 453 So.2d 402 (Fla.1984).

The appealed order is reversed and the case is remanded.

MINER, ALLEN and BENTON, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order by which the trial court dismissed the appellant’s action below, based on a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) failure to prosecute. The dismissal was entered upon a motion therefor made after the appellant filed a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(b) notice asserting that the case was at issue and ready for trial, and in which the appellant asked the court for an order setting the case for trial. Although the court had not yet scheduled a trial date, this case does not appear to involve any exception to the usual procedures in this regard; the appellant’s rule 1.440(b) notice thus precludes the rule 1.420(e) dismissal. See Mikos v. Sarasota Cattle Co., 453 So.2d 402 (Fla.1984).

The appealed order is reversed and the case is remanded.

MINER, ALLEN and BENTON, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

774 So. 2d 962, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 446, 2001 WL 50486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howland-feed-mill-inc-v-hart-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack