HERMAN POLLOCK AND LILLIAN POLLOCK, PETITIONERS,
v.
HYMIE POLLACK AND SARA POLLACK, RESPONDENTS; HERMAN POLLOCK, PETITIONER, V. HYMAN POLLACK AND SARA POLLACK, RESPONDENTS
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 Supreme Court held that Florida Statute § 45.19 is not self-executing and requires a motion to dismiss for abatement.
The District Court of Appeal, First District, considered cases involving the abatement statute, Florida Statute § 45.19. The cases consolidated for re…
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 Statutory Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
In Pollack v. Pollock1 the District Court of Appeal, First District, held that the Supreme Court of Florida had abandoned the position it took in the case of Hancock v. Hancock,2 to the effect that under provisions of the abatement statute (now § 45.-19, F.S.A.):
“ * * * the absence from the record of any affirmative action having been taken in the cause for a period of three years atitomatically abates the cause * *
thus rendering it legally dead, subject only to an order of dismissal upon proper motion at any time after the abatement.
We agree with the District Court’s determination that we repudiated and receded from the Hancock rule in Scarlett v. Frederick3, Dudemaine v. Shaw4, and May v. State 5. The existing rule on this point of law was correctly restated by the District Court when it said:
“F.S. § 45.19, F.S.A., is not self-executing but requires the moving party, to seek dismissal before any affirmative action in the prosecution of the cause is taken subsequent to the required period for abatement.” 110 So.2d 474, 477.
*762Since the requisite direct conflict is not present, certiorari is hereby denied as to both cases consolidated herein.
Certiorari denied.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Carter v. DeCARION, 400 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…Hospital District, 253 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), cert. denied, 257 So. 2d 562 (Fla.1972), and such action must be undertaken before there is any further prosecution of the cause, Pollack v. Pollock, 110 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 116 So. 2d 761 (Fla.1959). A party is required to show either active prosecution within the preceding year or good cause for his failure to prosecute to avert dismissal of the cause. Chrysler Leasing Corp. v. Passacantilli, 259 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1972); Ace Delivery Se…
-
Fund Ins. Cos. v. Sid Preskitt, 231 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…rrogatories within the one year period constituted action * * * and the filing of objections to the additional interrogatories amounts to defending an active cause of action.” . Pollack v. Pollack, Fla.App.1959, 110 So. 2d 474 (cert. den. Fla.1959, 116 So. 2d 761), construing F.S. 45.19(1), F.S.A. which contained similar wording as F.R.O.P. 1.420(e) ; Beigel v. Simon, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 473. . Passio v. Crowell, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 877. . F.A.R. 3.2 subd. b, 4.2, subd. b, 1962 revision, 32 F.S.A…
-
Morton M. Beigel v. Simon, 210 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…statute (in this case, Rule) providing for dismissal for want of prosecution is not self-executing, but requires a moving party to seek dismissal prior to resumption of affirmative action toward prosecution of the case. Pollock v. Pollock, Fla.1959, 116 So. 2d 761. The only remaining question is whether the filing of the “Trial Notice” constitutes such affirmative action toward prosecution of the cause as will prevent dismissal. In this connection, we rely upon the case of Ferrara v. Coyle Beverages, Inc., F…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Scarlett v. Frederick, 147 Fla. 407 (Fla. 1941)
- MAY v. State of Fla. ex rel. Richard W. Ervin, 96 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1957)
- Hancock v. Maude Lane Hancock, 128 Fla. 684 (Fla. 1937)
- Hymie Pollack and Sara Pollack v. Pollock, 110 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- ZOE M. Dudemaine v. Shaw, 153 Fla. 899 (Fla. 1944)
- Hyman Pollack and Sara Pollack v. Pollock, 110 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)