Lakeside Regent, Inc. v. Cohen, Scherer & Cohn, P.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lakeside Regent, Inc. v. Cohen, Scherer & Cohn, P.A.

642 So. 2d 148, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9032, 1994 WL 513952

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 21, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1910

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 642 So. 2d 148 (Lakeside Regent, Inc. v. Cohen, Scherer & Cohn, P.A.) 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

Lakeside Regent, Inc. v. Cohen, Scherer & Cohn, P.A., 642 So. 2d 148, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9032, 1994 WL 513952 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing appellants’ action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). We reverse and remand for the trial court to hold an eviden-tiary hearing on the disputed factual issues regarding whether or not appellants established good cause to prevent dismissal of [149]*149their action. See Withers v. Flagship Peoples Bank, 473 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); American E. Corp. v. Henry Blanton, Inc., 382 So.2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). The trial court is further directed on remand to make a specific finding or ruling as to whether or not good cause was shown. See Bruns v. Jones, 481 So.2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

HERSEY, STEVENSON, JJ., and ■ MICKLE, STEPHAN P., Associate Judge, concur.

NOTE: HERSEY, J., did not participate in oral argument but has reviewed the presentation made at that proceeding.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing appellants’ action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e). We reverse and remand for the trial court to hold an eviden-tiary hearing on the disputed factual issues regarding whether or not appellants established good cause to prevent dismissal of [149]*149their action. See Withers v. Flagship Peoples Bank, 473 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); American E. Corp. v. Henry Blanton, Inc., 382 So.2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). The trial court is further directed on remand to make a specific finding or ruling as to whether or not good cause was shown. See Bruns v. Jones, 481 So.2d 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

HERSEY, STEVENSON, JJ., and ■ MICKLE, STEPHAN P., Associate Judge, concur.

NOTE: HERSEY, J., did not participate in oral argument but has reviewed the presentation made at that proceeding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

642 So. 2d 148, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9032, 1994 WL 513952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lakeside-regent-inc-v-cohen-scherer-cohn-pa-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack