Lanahan v. Lentini

457 So. 2d 589, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2203, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15560
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 16, 1984·No. No. 84-531·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s order dismissing the instant case is reversed upon a holding that a trial court is precluded “from exercising its supposed inherent, discretionary power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute when, as in this case, there is activity of record within one year prior to the dismissal,” American Salvage & Jobbing Co. v. Salomon, 367 So.2d 716, 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); see Rivera v. A.M.I.F., Inc., 417 So.2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and this rule cannot be circumvented under the guise of dismissing the case on the ground that the plaintiff failed to respond to the court’s order requiring it to explain its inaction in the case where such inaction was for a period of less than a year.

Reversed.

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

Lanahan v. Lentini, 457 So. 2d 589, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2203, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15560 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

457 So. 2d 589 (Lanahan v. Lentini) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Feldman v. Renault Motors
550 So. 2d 31 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Glassalum Engineering v. 392208 Ontario Ltd.
487 So. 2d 87 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)