Jackson v. Feit
594 So. 2d 869, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2658, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 689
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 11, 1992·No. No. 91-1085·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
We agree with appellants that the trial court erred in denying their motions to amend and for continuance. The manner in which this ease was set for trial violated both the letter and the spirit of Rule 1.440(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (1991), concerning the method in which cases should be noticed and scheduled for trial. Cf. Ramos v. Menks, 509 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jackson v. Feit, 594 So. 2d 869, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2658, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 689 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).
594 So. 2d 869 (Jackson v. Feit) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Thomas v. Feinberg
745 So. 2d 500 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Roggemann v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co.
670 So. 2d 1073 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)