S. O. EATON AND GILBERT L. EATON, PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS S. O. EATON & COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
NORA W. HARRISON, N. A. HARRISON, HER HUSBAND, AND C. O. JONES, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a dismissal of a replevin action where the trial court dismissed the case for alleged failure to prosecute diligently, despite the fact that the necessary depositions had already been taken and were before the court at the time of dismissal.
The trial court abused its discretion in granting the dismissal order. While trial courts may dismiss for failure to prosecute diligently in the absence of plausible excuse, no such showing was made here, and the record did not warrant dismissal under the circumstances presented.
“A trial court may in its discretion dismiss a cause for failure to prosecute with diligence in the absence of plausible excuse therefor but no such showing is made here.”
Establishes the legal standard for dismissal for failure to prosecute—that a trial court has discretion but must make an adequate showing of lack of diligence and absence of plausible excuse.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed a replevin action in October 1926 in Volusia County Circuit Court. The case remained pending with various procedural steps taken over…
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 Diligence In Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
This writ.of error is from a final judgment dismissing an action of replevin instituted in the Circuit Court of Volusia County by the plaintiffs in error against the defendants in error. It is contended here that the Court below erred in its order of dismissal and in its order entering final judgment in the cause.
Thé record discloses that various and sundry steps were taken in the cause from the time of its inception in October, *16691926; to the date of the order of dismissal in January, 1929, all of which oh the record appear to be regular but immaterial to the question before us. The motion to dismiss was made and granted January 24, 1929, without notice to the plaintiff or their counsel, the cause being at issue on the docket and ready for trial but no date for trial having been set. It appears from the order- of dismissal that the said order was predicated on the fact that diligence had not been exercised by the plaintiff in “suing out a commission to take said depositions” but whether this was a fact or not it is shown that the commission was sued out and the depositions had been taken and were before the Court at the time the order of dismissal was made.
A trial court may in its discretion dismiss a cause for failure to prosecute with diligence in the absence of plausible excuse therefor but no such showing is made here. It appears that the cause was long drawn out but the record is regular and does not warrant dismissal in the manner shown.
We think therefore that in granting the order of dismissal on the showing made the trial court abused its discretion for which the cause must be and is hereby reversed.
Reversed.
Terrell, C. J. and Whitfield, Ellis, Strhm, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Milu, Inc. v. Duke, 256 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…the rule. Appellee contends that notwithstanding the fact that the court may not have been justified in dismissing the matter, under the rule it had an inherent power to dismiss. In this contention we have examined the following: Eaton v. Harrison, 100 Fla. 1668, 132 So. 635; Reddish v. Forlines, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 703; Popkin v. Crispen, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 445; Shalabey v. Memorial Hospital of South Broward Hospital District, Fla.App.1971, 253 So. 2d 712, (opinion filed October 27, 1971). Upon…