Milu, Inc. v. Duke

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Milu, Inc. v. Duke

256 So. 2d 83, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5574

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 7, 1971

DocketNo. 71-368

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 256 So. 2d 83 (Milu, Inc. v. Duke) 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

Milu, Inc. v. Duke, 256 So. 2d 83, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5574 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the trial court dismissing his cause of action for want of prosecution, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.420(e), R.C.P., 30 F.S. A.

It is apparent from the record that action had been taken within one year by the plaintiff. This action was in the nature of filing a notice of hearing, which was held sufficient to constitute affirmative action by a plaintiff. Scarlett v. Frederick, 147 Fla. 407, 3 So.2d 165; City of Miami v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., Fla.App. 1962, 141 So.2d 285; Knowles v. Gilbert, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 660. Therefore, we find that the court erred in dismissing the cause pursuant to the provisions of the rule.

Appellee contends that notwithstanding the fact that the court may not have been justified in dismissing the matter, under the rule it had an inherent power to dismiss. In this contention we have examined the following: Eaton v. Harrison, 100 Fla. 1668, 132 So. 635; Reddish v. Forlines, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 703; Popkin v. Crispen, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 445; Shalabey v. Memorial Hospital of South Broward Hospital District, Fla.App.1971, 253 So.2d 712, (opinion filed October 27, 1971). Upon a full examination of these authorities and on the record in the instant case, we do not find a sufficient basis to justify the court’s dismissing the cause under its inherent power and, having found it lacked the authority to dismiss it under the rule, we therefore reverse the final judgment of dismissal here under review, with directions to reinstate the plaintiff’s last complaint and cause of action.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the trial court dismissing his cause of action for want of prosecution, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.420(e), R.C.P., 30 F.S. A.

It is apparent from the record that action had been taken within one year by the plaintiff. This action was in the nature of filing a notice of hearing, which was held sufficient to constitute affirmative action by a plaintiff. Scarlett v. Frederick, 147 Fla. 407, 3 So.2d 165; City of Miami v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., Fla.App. 1962, 141 So.2d 285; Knowles v. Gilbert, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 660. Therefore, we find that the court erred in dismissing the cause pursuant to the provisions of the rule.

Appellee contends that notwithstanding the fact that the court may not have been justified in dismissing the matter, under the rule it had an inherent power to dismiss. In this contention we have examined the following: Eaton v. Harrison, 100 Fla. 1668, 132 So. 635; Reddish v. Forlines, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 703; Popkin v. Crispen, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 445; Shalabey v. Memorial Hospital of South Broward Hospital District, Fla.App.1971, 253 So.2d 712, (opinion filed October 27, 1971). Upon a full examination of these authorities and on the record in the instant case, we do not find a sufficient basis to justify the court’s dismissing the cause under its inherent power and, having found it lacked the authority to dismiss it under the rule, we therefore reverse the final judgment of dismissal here under review, with directions to reinstate the plaintiff’s last complaint and cause of action.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 So. 2d 83, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milu-inc-v-duke-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack