Lamberto v. Artime
This text of 672 So. 2d 886 (Lamberto v. Artime) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
672 So. 2d 886, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4559, 1996 WL 210867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamberto-v-artime-fladistctapp-1996.