WILLIAM WADE STEWART, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; JOHN R. TURNER, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court imposed a $1,000 fine against attorney Mark L. Krasnow for failure to prosecute appeals and disregard of court orders, after he failed to respond to a show-cause order.
An attorney who fails to prosecute appeals and disregard court orders may be sanctioned with a monetary fine when the attorney fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
[1] An attorney's failure to comply with a court order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed results in imposition of the threatened sanctions without further hea…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAttorney Mark L. Krasnow failed to prosecute two criminal appeals and disregarded court orders. After the court issued a show-cause order requiring Kr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On June 18,1986 this court filed an opinion imposing sanctions in the above-styled cases against attorney Mark L. Krasnow. The derelictions of Mr. Krasnow regarding his failure to prosecute these appeals and his disregard of court orders directed to him are set out in that opinion. See Stewart v. State, 490 So. 2d 166 and Turner v. State, 491 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) 490 So. 2d 166.
The above opinion required attorney Krasnow to file a statement in writing on or before July 8,1986 and to appear before this court at Lakeland on July 14, 1986 at 9:30 a.m. to show cause why this court should not impose additional sanctions including payment of a fine of not less than $1000. Attorney Krasnow has not filed a statement in writing and did not appear on July 14, 1986. Therefore, no cause having been shown why a fine should not be imposed for the derelictions of Mr. Krasnow specified in this court’s opinion of June 18, 1986, this court hereby imposes a fine for those derelictions in the amount of $1000 against Krasnow payable to the clerk of this court on or before July 31, 1986.
The court further directs that a copy of this opinion shall be sent to The Florida Bar. GRIMES, Acting C.J., and SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Raoul Vienneau v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 548 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…DCA 1972). The court may also consider the conduct of the parties through their course of dealings to determine the meaning of the written agreement. Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Data Lease Financial Corp., 302 So. 2d at 407; Maines v. Davis, 491 So. 2d 1233, 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Another elementary principle is that where the language of a contract is ambiguous or doubtful, it should be construed against the par [*860] ty who drew the contract and chose the wording. Grappone v. City of Miami Beach,…
-
Brevard Cnty. Fair Ass'n, Inc. v. Cocoa Expo, Inc., 832 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)….conduct of the parties in their course of dealings to determine the meaning of a contract. Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 302 So. 2d 404, 407 (Fla.1974); Lalow v. Codomo, 101 So. 2d 390 (Fla.1958); Maines v. Davis, 491 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We conclude the trial judge properly-relied on the parties’ course of dealing during the lease to determine the meaning of the ambiguous provision in the lease. In serving as a fact finder, the trial court’s conclusion comes to…
-
L & H Constr. Co., Inc. v. Circle Redmont, Inc., 55 So. 3d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…So. 2d 786, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). To ascertain the intent of the parties to a contract, the trial court must examine the whole instrument, not isolated parts. Blackshear Mfg. Co. v. Fralick, 88 Fla. 589, 102 So. 753, 754 (1925); Maines v. Davis, 491 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Macaw v. Gross, 452 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). In the event an agreement is ambiguous, the court should follow a construction that best comports with logic, reason, and the purposes underlying the parties’ agree…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stewart v. State, 490 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Maines v. Davis, 491 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)