STATE DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION v. Crest Products, Inc.

671 So. 2d 211, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3269, 1996 WL 135507
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 27, 1996
Docket95-02053
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 671 So. 2d 211 (STATE DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION v. Crest Products, Inc.) 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
STATE DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION v. Crest Products, Inc., 671 So. 2d 211, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3269, 1996 WL 135507 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

671 So.2d 211 (1996)

STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Appellant,
v.
CREST PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee.

No. 95-02053.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 1996.

Thomas M. Beason, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

William B. Taylor, IV, of Macfarlane, Ausley, Ferguson & McMullen, Tampa, for Appellee.

WHATLEY, Judge.

The appellant, the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), challenges the trial court's order of dismissal for failure to prosecute. The appellee, Crest Products, Inc., concedes that the matter should not have been dismissed. We reverse.

The DEP filed a notice for trial on December 18, 1991, but the trial court failed to set the case for trial. There was no other record activity in the case since the filing of the notice for trial. The trial court dismissed the case on its own motion for failure to prosecute.

Once a plaintiff has filed a notice for trial, it is the trial court's responsibility to enter an order setting a trial date. Mikos v. Sarasota Cattle Co., 453 So.2d 402 (Fla.1984); Brown v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 562 So.2d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The filing of the notice bars the trial court from dismissing the action for lack of prosecution. Mikos. Consequently, in this case, the trial court was barred from dismissing the action after the DEP filed its notice for trial.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

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

Related

Izquierdo v. Hillsborough County School Board
918 So. 2d 1009 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Young v. MOBILE DENTAL HEALTH
730 So. 2d 766 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Hannon v. Nassr
701 So. 2d 445 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Glazer
671 So. 2d 211 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
671 So. 2d 211, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3269, 1996 WL 135507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-dept-of-environmental-protection-v-crest-products-inc-fladistctapp-1996.