Leonardo v. Grimming

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Leonardo v. Grimming

740 So. 2d 580, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9841, 1999 WL 512129

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 21, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2820

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 740 So. 2d 580 (Leonardo v. Grimming) 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

Leonardo v. Grimming, 740 So. 2d 580, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9841, 1999 WL 512129 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this action for damages, at a case management conference, the trial court instructed the parties to “set down” a hearing in ten days. After the ten days expired, and no hearing had been “set down,” the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice, which may be the equivalent of a dismissal with prejudice because of the statute of limitations. We reverse the order because it does not contain “an express finding of a willful or deliberate refusal to obey a court order” which is a requisite for the sanction of dismissal. Commonwealth Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271, 1272 (Fla.1990). Nor do we think, even if there had been such a finding, dismissal would have been justified. Reversed.

WARNER, C.J., KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this action for damages, at a case management conference, the trial court instructed the parties to “set down” a hearing in ten days. After the ten days expired, and no hearing had been “set down,” the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice, which may be the equivalent of a dismissal with prejudice because of the statute of limitations. We reverse the order because it does not contain “an express finding of a willful or deliberate refusal to obey a court order” which is a requisite for the sanction of dismissal. Commonwealth Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271, 1272 (Fla.1990). Nor do we think, even if there had been such a finding, dismissal would have been justified. Reversed.

WARNER, C.J., KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

740 So. 2d 580, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9841, 1999 WL 512129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonardo-v-grimming-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack