Nicholson v. Eli Lilly and Company
This text of 285 So. 2d 648 (Nicholson v. Eli Lilly and Company) 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.
Opinion
Ann NICHOLSON, Appellant,
v.
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, an Indiana Corporation, et al., Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Levenstein, Burke & Associates, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
Smathers & Thompson and James L. Armstrong, III, West, Goldman & Weisberg; Stephens, Magill, Thornton & Sevier, Miami, and Timothy Carl Blake, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant's cause was dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. The record supports a finding by the trial court that the cause was not only subject to dismissal under Rule 1.420(e), 30 F.S.A., but, under the special circumstances presented, was also subject to dismissal with prejudice pursuant to the inherent power of the trial court to eliminate causes from its docket which are not being prosecuted with due diligence. See Rule 1.420(e); Reddish v. Forlines, Fla.App. 1968, 207 So.2d 703.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
285 So. 2d 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholson-v-eli-lilly-and-company-fladistctapp-1973.