JAMIE TERRELL COCKFIELD, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Jose and Anais Suarez v. Benihana Nat'l OF Fla. Corp., 88 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
  …n of the action, such a power must be exercised with great caution. Such a sanction is reserved only for those cases involving “the most blatant showing of fraud, pretense, collusion or other similar wrongdoing.” Laurore v. Miami Auto. Retail, Inc., 16 So. 3d 862, 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (quoting Young v. Curgil, 358 So. 2d 58, 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)). See also Francois v. Harris, 366 So. 2d 851, 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (observing that “in all but the most extreme cases, our system entrusts juries with the ulti…
• Hair v. Morton, 36 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
  …ALYSIS “A trial court’s power to dismiss a case based on fraud should be cautiously and sparingly exercised and then only on ‘the most blatant showing of fraud, pretense, collusion or other similar wrongdoing.’” Laurore v. Miami Auto. Retail, Inc., 16 So. 3d 862, 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (quoting Young v. Curgil, 358 So. 2d 58, 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)). Indeed, the severe sanction of dismissal is appropriate only when it is established by clear and convincing evidence “that a party has sentiently set in motion…
• SKY Dev., Inc. v. Vistaview Dev., Inc., 41 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
  …clude that the dismissal, and entry of final judgment thereafter, was an abuse of discretion. The plaintiffs misconduct was certainly a “blatant showing of fraud, pretense, collusion or other similar wrongdoing.” Laurore v. Miami Auto. Retail, Inc., 16 So. 3d 862, 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). The requisite fraud on the court occurs where “it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sen-tiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s abili…

Authorities Cited

• Arnold v. State, 892 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)