Lamberto v. Artime

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lamberto v. Artime

672 So. 2d 886, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4559, 1996 WL 210867

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 1, 1996·No. No. 95-1474·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment for the appellee-plaintiff under review is reversed because no good cause — by way of cognizable non-record activity or otherwise — was demonstrated to justify the failure of the predecessor trial judge to dismiss the case under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) after a period of more than one year had elapsed without record activity. Public Health Trust v. Diaz, 529 So.2d 682 (Fla.1988); Tosar v. Sladek, 393 So.2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); F.M.C. Corp. v. Chatman, 368 So.2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So.2d 203 (Fla.1979); Dade County v. Moreno, 227 So.2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment for the appellee-plaintiff under review is reversed because no good cause — by way of cognizable non-record activity or otherwise — was demonstrated to justify the failure of the predecessor trial judge to dismiss the case under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) after a period of more than one year had elapsed without record activity. Public Health Trust v. Diaz, 529 So.2d 682 (Fla.1988); Tosar v. Sladek, 393 So.2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); F.M.C. Corp. v. Chatman, 368 So.2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So.2d 203 (Fla.1979); Dade County v. Moreno, 227 So.2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).

Lamberto v. Artime, 672 So. 2d 886, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4559, 1996 WL 210867 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

672 So. 2d 886 (Lamberto v. Artime) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related