Jesse v. Commercial Diving Academy of Jacksonville, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jesse v. Commercial Diving Academy of Jacksonville, Inc.

963 So. 2d 308, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 12638, 2007 WL 2301349

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 14, 2007

DocketNo. 1D06-6260

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 963 So. 2d 308 (Jesse v. Commercial Diving Academy of Jacksonville, 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

Jesse v. Commercial Diving Academy of Jacksonville, Inc., 963 So. 2d 308, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 12638, 2007 WL 2301349 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a final order dismissing with prejudice his personal injury action based on a determination that appellant intentionally repeatedly gave false testimony on a material issue during discovery. Our standard of review is abuse of discretion. See Distefano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 846 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Baker v. Myers Tractor Servs., Inc., 765 So.2d 149, 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We have carefully reviewed the record, and conclude that the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent substantial evidence. Moreover, those findings demonstrate clearly and convincingly that appellant did, in fact, intentionally testify falsely on a material issue. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed appellant’s action with prejudice as a sanction for such conduct.

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a final order dismissing with prejudice his personal injury action based on a determination that appellant intentionally repeatedly gave false testimony on a material issue during discovery. Our standard of review is abuse of discretion. See Distefano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 846 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Baker v. Myers Tractor Servs., Inc., 765 So.2d 149, 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We have carefully reviewed the record, and conclude that the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent substantial evidence. Moreover, those findings demonstrate clearly and convincingly that appellant did, in fact, intentionally testify falsely on a material issue. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed appellant’s action with prejudice as a sanction for such conduct.

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

963 So. 2d 308, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 12638, 2007 WL 2301349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesse-v-commercial-diving-academy-of-jacksonville-inc-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack