JOSE CHOVERT, PETITIONER,
v.
FRANCIS ROCKWELL AND NATIONAL PLASTIC CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Petitioner Chovert sought certiorari to review the trial court's refusal to vacate a dismissal order. The court affirmed the trial judge's decision, holding that once the November 22, 1961 dismissal order became final, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a subsequent motion to vacate filed in May 1962.
The trial court properly refused to grant the motion to vacate because the November 22, 1961 dismissal order was final, and the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain or grant the motion after that finality.
“In so holding, the trial judge was eminently correct.”
Court's affirmation that the trial judge properly applied the law regarding jurisdictional limits after a final dismissal order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued an order on November 22, 1961 directing plaintiff to file written interrogatory answers within 15 days, with dismissal to follo…
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.
This case comes before us on petition for writ ’of certiorari in a common law action, to review a refusal of the trial court to grant a motion to vacate a dismissal.
On November 22, 1961, an order was entered directing that certain written interrogatories be answered within a 15-day period and providing for dismissal without further order if such answers were not filed within that extended time.1 When the answers were not filed, there was an order in January allowing further time, the provisions of which were not met by the plaintiff. Later, on March 5, 1962, an order was entered which provided that if certain performance was not made by the plaintiff the cause would be dismissed.2 Thereafter, in May of 1962, after the November 22, 1961 order had become final,3 the plaintiff moved to vacate the order of March 5, 1962, on the ground that it was in conflict with a stipulation of the parties. The trial judge refused to grant the motion, on the ground that the order of November 22, 1961, was a final order of dismissal, and that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain or grant the motion. In so holding, the trial judge was eminently correct. See Morrison v. Chambers, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 594; State ex rel. Croker v. Chillingworth, 106 Fla. 323, 143 So. 346, 347; Osborne v. Shell Oil Company, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 670, 671.
Certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rashard v. Cappiali, 171 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…Supreme Court had held that a trial court has the inherent power to impose the sanction of dismissal as a coercive and disciplinary measure. Surrency v. Winn & Lovett Grocery Co., 160 Fla. 294, 34 So. 2d 564. In Chovert v. Rockwell, Fla.App. 1962, 145 So. 2d 283, this Court acted on a petition for writ of certiorari and denied the writ which was prayed upon the basis of the trial court’s refusal to grant-a motion to vacate a dismissal. Inasmuch as the opinion was upon denial of certiorari, the holding of th…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Chillingworth, 106 Fla. 323 (Fla. 1932)
- Howard Johnson, Inc. v. State Rd. Dep't OF Fla., 90 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1956)
- Marvell Womack v. Burton F. Goldberg and Joyce S. Goldberg, 117 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Osborne v. Shell OIL Co., 104 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Morrison v. Margaret L. Chambers and her husband, 82 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1955)