THE STREMS LAW FIRM, P.A.
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
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.
Rule 1.540 does not provide a vehicle to challenge judicial errors and trial courts have inherent authority to impose sanctions, including dismissal or default, for discovery violations and attorney bad faith conduct.
[1] Rule 1.540 is limited to providing relief under specific circumstances and does not serve as a substitute for appellate review of trial court errors.
[2] A trial court possesses inherent authority to impose attorney sanctions for bad faith conduct.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Strems Law Firm and individual appellants sought relief from non-final orders entered by the trial court in a property insurance dispute against C…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1990) (“Rule 1.540 was intended to provide relief from judgments, decrees or orders under a limited set of circumstances. This rule was not intended to serve as a substitute . . . for appellate review of judicial error.” (internal quotation omitted)); see also Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 226 (Fla. 2002) (“[A] trial court possesses the inherent authority to impose attorneys’ fees against an attorney for bad faith conduct.”); Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271, 1273 (Fla. 1990) (reaffirming that a trial judge has the “discretion to order dismissal or default for failure to comply with discovery requirements”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fed. Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 558 F.2d 128 (2d Cir. 1977)…pealed from is affirmed. . Arrowsmith and its progeny, involve adjustments between transferors and transferees, occurring subsequent to an initial closed transaction. Factually analogous is Duveen Brothers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 17 T.C. 124 (1951), aff’d. 197 F. 2d 118 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 884, 73 S.Ct. 182, 97 L.Ed. 684 (1952). Furthermore, Arrowsmith has been applied in cases such as this “where the parties have agreed to share in an up side profit potential . . .” (Appe…
-
Duveen Bros., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 197 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1952)…e Code, 26 U.S. C.A. § 23(f) as the taxpayer contends, or only partially deductible as a capital loss under sections 23(g) and 117, as the Tax Court held, four judges dissenting. The facts and the opposing arguments are stated in the opinions below, 17 T.C. 124, and need not be here repeated. We see nothing to distinguish the case from this court’s recent decisions in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Arrowsmith, 2 Cir., 193 F. 2d 734, and Milliken v. C. I. R., 2 Cir., 195 F. 2d 135. On the authority of…
Authorities Cited
- Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Moshe Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990)
- Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2002)
- Arnaldo Curbelo, M.D. v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1990)