Hunter v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hunter v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.

477 So. 2d 642, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2230, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16015

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 26, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1743

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 477 So. 2d 642 (Hunter v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.) 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

Hunter v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., 477 So. 2d 642, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2230, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16015 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered after a dismissal for failure to prosecute. Because appellant filed a notice to produce within one year before the motion to dismiss was filed, we reverse the order of dismissal pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). See Henson v. Whorf, 466 So.2d 23 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Orange Electric Company v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 467 So.2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). While we have great sympathy with the trial court and appellee’s argument that the discovery sought was not such that would actually bring the matter to a trial posture we are giving the benefit of the doubt to appellant. It is our recommendation that the trial judge set this case for trial at the earliest time convenient to the court because counsel has been reluctant, for whatever reason, to do so. Both parties are entitled to an early resolution of the dispute.

The judgment is set aside, the order reversed and the complaint, counterclaim and defense pleadings reinstated and this cause remanded for trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered after a dismissal for failure to prosecute. Because appellant filed a notice to produce within one year before the motion to dismiss was filed, we reverse the order of dismissal pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). See Henson v. Whorf, 466 So.2d 23 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Orange Electric Company v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 467 So.2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). While we have great sympathy with the trial court and appellee’s argument that the discovery sought was not such that would actually bring the matter to a trial posture we are giving the benefit of the doubt to appellant. It is our recommendation that the trial judge set this case for trial at the earliest time convenient to the court because counsel has been reluctant, for whatever reason, to do so. Both parties are entitled to an early resolution of the dispute.

The judgment is set aside, the order reversed and the complaint, counterclaim and defense pleadings reinstated and this cause remanded for trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 So. 2d 642, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2230, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-cal-maine-foods-inc-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack