Killigan v. City of Lake Butler

821 So. 2d 356, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8570, 2002 WL 1338041
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 20, 2002
DocketNo. 1D01-2187
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 821 So. 2d 356 (Killigan v. City of Lake Butler) 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
Killigan v. City of Lake Butler, 821 So. 2d 356, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8570, 2002 WL 1338041 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges an order granting appellees’ motion for involuntary dismissal with prejudice, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b), as a sanction because of appellant’s alleged misrepresentations during discovery. We reverse because the order fails to include any findings whatsoever. See, e.g., Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271 (Fla.1990); Carr v. Dean Steel Bldgs., Inc., 619 So.2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Cf. Baker v. Myers Tractor Servs., Inc., 765 So.2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

REVERSED.

ALLEN, C.J., ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

North Star Beauty Salon, Inc. v. Artzt
821 So. 2d 356 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
821 So. 2d 356, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8570, 2002 WL 1338041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/killigan-v-city-of-lake-butler-fladistctapp-2002.