TERRY D. LOUDERMILK, APPELLANT,
v.
CARRIE L. SCOBIE, DANA EVERHART, WILLIAM KINGSTON AND JUERGEN HAKERT, APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Gulf Appliance Distributors v. Long, 53 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1951); Overseas Development, Inc. v. Amerifirst Federal Savings & Loan Association, 433 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review dismissed, 438 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1983); Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.420(e).
HENDRY and BASKIN, JJ., concur.
FERGUSON, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result because plaintiffs search to locate the defendants for purposes of service of process did not constitute record activity so as to establish good cause to avoid dismissal for lack of prosecution. The search was documented only by an affidavit and letter from two investigative firms filed in response to the court’s rule to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, and was not evidenced by any record activity, as by use of discovery procedures, during the one year prior to the filing of the court’s rule to show cause. See Reilly v. Fuss, 170 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 177 So. 2d 476 (Fla.1965); see also Funke v. Lopez, 432 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); American Eastern Corp. v. Henry Blanton, Inc., 382 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (since the 1977 amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e), nonrecord activity is no longer recognized as sufficient good cause absent the showing of a compelling reason to avoid dismissal).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Broward Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Cruz, 761 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…y, he places his condition in controversy, and good cause for the examination is therefore shown. See Dominique v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 642 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), rev. denied, 651 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995); see also Anderson v. Anderson, 470 So. 2d 52, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)(there must be an affirmative showing by the movant that each condition for which examination is sought really and genuinely is in controversy and that good cause exists for ordering same). It is not enough that the defendants…
-
Pariser v. Pariser, 601 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…reasonableness test of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1202-03 (Fla.1980). While petitioner maintains that the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing, an evidentiary hearing is not always required. Cf. Anderson v. Anderson, 470 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). A review of this record reveals sufficient information that based on Cana-karis we cannot say that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering these tests. WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur. GLIC…
-
Reynolds v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Ymca of Greater Miami, 621 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.360(a)(2); see Williams v. Williams, 550 So. 2d 166, 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (“to show ‘good cause’ for the examination, it must be demonstrated that expert medical testimony is necessary to resolve the issue.”); Anderson v. Anderson, 470 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); thus, the order compelling the examination constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. Certiorari granted; order quashed.…
Authorities Cited
- Am. E. Corp. v. Henry Blanton, Inc., 382 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Overseas Dev., Inc. v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 433 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- LaVonne D. Reilly v. Fuss, 170 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Funke v. Lopez, 432 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Painters' Union Local 365, AFL-CIO v. Fountainebleau Hotel Corp., 177 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1965)
- Strawder v. State, 177 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1965)