STEINMETZ GROUP LIMITED, APPELLANT,

v.

PATRICIA SONDRA BLACKMON, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Segall v. Segall, 632 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
  …Ltd. A jury returned a verdict against the appellants. The appellants then retained another law firm to represent them in the appeal. This court, however, dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with discovery orders. Segall v. Downtown Assocs., 546 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). After the dismissal, the appellants instituted a legal malpractice action against Segall and Gold claiming that as a result of the malpractice the jury returned a verdict against them.1 Segall and Gold filed a motion for summary…
• Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 640 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
  …court may, in its discretion, either entertain or dismiss an appeal.” Gazil v. Gazil, 343 So. 2d 595, 597 (Fla.1977); see McLemore v. McLemore, 567 So. 2d 23, 24 (Fla. 1st DCA), cause dismissed, 576 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1990); Segall v. Downtown Assocs., 546 So. 2d 11, 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Keidaish v. Smith, 400 So. 2d 90, 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); see also State v. Gurican, 576 So. 2d 709 (Fla.1991) (discussing dismissal of appeal of criminal defendant). An appellate court should ordinarily provide a grace period…
• Luskin v. Luskin, 616 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
  …ntemporaneously invokes the fifth amendment to avoid compliance with discovery. See Davidson v. District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 501 So. 2d 603 (Fla.1987); DePalma v. DePalma, 538 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Segall v. Downtown Assoc., 546 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Minor v. Minor, 240 So. 2d 301 (Fla.1970); Stockham v. Stockham, 168 So. 2d 320 (Fla.1964). The facts of this case do not appear to require a dismissal. The appellants were apparently not seeking affirmative relief below, and, n…