Metro Obras, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance

611 So. 2d 1356, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1186
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 19, 1993·No. No. 92-1566·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the order now under review, the trial court set aside a dismissal for lack of prosecution on the ground that the plaintiff had not been given appropriate notice. See Harris v. Filmon, 358 So.2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). This order was properly entered pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b) and is therefore affirmed. Kanecke v. Lennar Homes, Inc., 543 So.2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Falkner v. AmeriFirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 489 So.2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The merits of a dismissal under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(e) remain to be decided below.

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

Metro Obras, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance, 611 So. 2d 1356, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1186 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

611 So. 2d 1356 (Metro Obras, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eugene Hamlin v. Shaughnessy Overland Express, Inc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
MICHAEL LESINSKI v. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
226 So. 3d 964 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)