ADVANCE TOOL & DIE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
SUPERIOR STAMPINGS, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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.
Petitioner challenges a trial court's order reinstating a replevin action that had been dismissed for lack of prosecution. The appellate court finds the trial court abused its discretion by reinstating the case, as the reasons offered by respondent for the delay did not constitute good cause under the applicable statute.
The trial court abused its discretion in reinstating the dismissed cause because respondent failed to show good cause for the delay. The statute § 45.19 applies to all types of causes of action, including replevin actions, and does not differentiate among them.
“the statute does not attempt to differentiate in the types of causes of action which are subject to dismissal thereunder”
Establishes that § 45.19 applies uniformly to all types of civil actions, including replevin actions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent filed a replevin action against petitioner. No action was taken on the case for more than one year. The trial court dismissed the cause for…
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 Good Cause For Reinstatement cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari asking this court to quash an order of the civil court of record which reinstated a cause of action previously dismissed pursuant to § 45.19, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
This was a replevin action in which the respondent was the plaintiff and the petitioner the defendant in the trial court. It is admitted that no action had been taken in the cause for a period of more than one year and that upon motion and notice, the trial court dismissed the cause of action for lack of prosecution pursuant to § 45.19, supra. Within the thirty days provided by § 45.19, supra, the respondent petitioned for a reinstatement of the cause, which petition was sworn to by the respondent’s counsel of record. Without delineating the various misfortunes that deterred the respondent from prosecuting its cause of action, we nevertheless conclude that they were insufficient cause to warrant an order of reinstatement under the statute. By this we do not infer that the causes which are alleged to have existed did not in fact exist, but that they are not sufficient, when measured against the applicable principles of law, to constitute good cause under the statute. See Davant v. Coachman Properties, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 844, and cases cited therein.
The respondent contends that this was an action in replevin and that the statute, § 45.19, supra, did not apply. Our attention has not been directed to any authority or decision that espouses this principle and the statute does not attempt to differentiate *292in the types of causes of action which are subject to dismissal thereunder. It may be, as the respondent argues, that if the order of dismissal is reinstated a new cause of action will be required by the petitioner, to determine rightful possession of the personalty involved; nevertheless this would raise issues which are not before us or necessary for a determination of the present action.
In entering the order reinstating the cause, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law, and it follows that such order should be and it is hereby quashed with directions that the order dismissing the cause be reinstated.
Certiorari granted with directions.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Suez Co. v. Lilla D. Hodgins, 137 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…On Petition for Rehearing of Case No. 61-445 PER CURIAM. Petitioner has by petition for rehearing called to our attention our own decision in Advance Tool and Dye, Inc. v. Superior Stampings, Inc., 130 So. 2d 291. In that case we considered on petition for certio-rari an order reinstating a cause originally dismissed pursuant to § 45.19, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., for want of prosecution. The opinion in that case did not pass upon the propriety of petition for writ…
Authorities Cited
- Davant v. Coachman Props., Inc., 118 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)