BRUCE LAMBERTO, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE ARTIME, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1996-05-01
No. 95-1474
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and LEVY and GODERICH, JJ.
672 So. 2d 886 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment for the appellee-plaintiff under review is reversed because no good cause — by way of cognizable non-record activity or otherwise — was demonstrated to justify the failure of the predecessor trial judge to dismiss the case under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) after a period of more than one year had elapsed without record activity. Public Health Trust v. Diaz, 529 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1988); Tosar v. Sladek, 393 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); F.M.C. Corp. v. Chatman, 368 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1979); Dade County v. Moreno, 227 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Artime v. Brotman, 838 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
    …th interest. The trial court entered final judgment on April 24, 1995 in Artime’s favor against Lamberto. This Court reversed, holding that Artime had failed to demonstrate record activity in the lawsuit for more than a year. See Lamberto v. Artime, 672 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). On September 2, 1998, Artime sued ap-pellees Marc C. Brotman, Joel R. Wolpe, Mark A. Liebowitz, and Steven R. Berger, for legal malpractice. Artime alleged that the defendants negligently permitted a period in excess of one year…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw