McMillian v. State, Department of Corrections

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McMillian v. State, Department of Corrections

506 So. 2d 1171, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1231, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8146

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 12, 1987

DocketNo. 86-3047

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 506 So. 2d 1171 (McMillian v. State, Department of Corrections) 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

McMillian v. State, Department of Corrections, 506 So. 2d 1171, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1231, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8146 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in a wrongful death action appeals from the dismissal of her complaint without prejudice¹ because of the failure to [1172]*1172make timely and appropriate discovery as required by the rules and prior order of court. Notwithstanding the often-expressed view of this court, to which we adhere, that such a remedy is not lightly to be invoked or approved, Velazquez v. Gaitan, 499 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Smalley v. Layne, 428 So.2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Summit Chase Condominium Ass’n v. Protean Investors, Inc., 421 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see Wallraff v. T.G.I. Friday’s, Inc., 490 So.2d 50 (Fla.1986), we cannot interfere with the trial court’s discretionary determination that the deliberateness and inexcusability of the appellant’s discovery violations justified the sanction imposed. See Wallraff, 490 So.2d at 50; Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla.1983); Farish v. Lum's, Inc., 267 So.2d 325 (Fla.1972); Freeman v. Humana, Inc., 501 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); A.H. Robins Co. v. Devereaux, 415 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 426 So.2d 25 (Fla.1983); Watson v. Peskoe, 407 So.2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in a wrongful death action appeals from the dismissal of her complaint without prejudice¹ because of the failure to [1172]*1172make timely and appropriate discovery as required by the rules and prior order of court. Notwithstanding the often-expressed view of this court, to which we adhere, that such a remedy is not lightly to be invoked or approved, Velazquez v. Gaitan, 499 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Smalley v. Layne, 428 So.2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Summit Chase Condominium Ass’n v. Protean Investors, Inc., 421 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see Wallraff v. T.G.I. Friday’s, Inc., 490 So.2d 50 (Fla.1986), we cannot interfere with the trial court’s discretionary determination that the deliberateness and inexcusability of the appellant’s discovery violations justified the sanction imposed. See Wallraff, 490 So.2d at 50; Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla.1983); Farish v. Lum's, Inc., 267 So.2d 325 (Fla.1972); Freeman v. Humana, Inc., 501 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); A.H. Robins Co. v. Devereaux, 415 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 426 So.2d 25 (Fla.1983); Watson v. Peskoe, 407 So.2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 So. 2d 1171, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1231, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmillian-v-state-department-of-corrections-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack