RICHARD R. HOUSWERTH, APPELLANT,

v.

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Houswerth v. Neimiec, 603 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
  …cute. This court has previously held in a case in which appellant was a party, that a dismissal for want of prosecution does not prevent appellant from filing suit again if all other legal requirements are met. See Houswerth v. Sheriff's Department, 567 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). But this does not end our inquiry. Neimiec urges that even if the trial court erred in dismissing the case on res judicata grounds, the statute of limitations has run and appellant has no valid cause of action. Here the record…
• Wynelle L. Sebree v. Schantz, 963 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
  …an negligence or inattention to deadlines. It has been defined by our courts as proof of some compelling reason why the suit was not prosecuted.”)(emphasis added), disapproved on other grounds, Hall, 784 So. 2d at 1091. Houswerth v. Sheriff’s Dept., 567 So. 2d 476, 476-77 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)(“Appellant’s ignorance of the duty to prosecute [a] case and the means to do so do not constitute ‘good cause’ to avoid dismissal.”). See also Freeman v. Toney, 608 So. 2d 863, 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)(“[A] change of attor…

Authorities Cited

• A.P. v. State, 558 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
• Barton-Malow Co. & The Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Gorman Co. OF Ocala, Inc., 558 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)