GERALD LAUG AND KENNETH W. LONDON, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN MURPHY, APPELLEE
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.
Murphy sued defendants Laug and London in 1961. The case was dismissed for want of prosecution in 1965, but the trial court reinstated it based on Murphy's petition claiming negotiation efforts and hardship. The appellate court reversed, holding that Murphy's stated grounds were legally insufficient to constitute "good cause" for reinstatement under Florida statute.
The court held that the plaintiff's stated grounds were insufficient as a matter of law to constitute good cause for reinstatement. The facts that a case is ready for trial, that dismissal would cause severe hardship, and that parties unsuccessfully negotiated settlement do not individually or collectively satisfy the statutory requirement of good cause.
“Neither the fact that a case is ready to be set for trial, the fact that the dismissal will cause severe hardship, nor the fact that the parties have unsuccessfully negotiated for settlement, constitutes good cause for reinstatement within the intendment of F.S.1963, Section 45.19(1), F.S.A.”
Establishes the core holding that common grounds asserted for reinstatement do not satisfy the statutory good cause requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMurphy filed suit in 1961. The court denied his summary judgment motion in November 1963. No action was taken in the case throughout 1964. On January …
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
Defendants appeal a final judgment in favor of plaintiff, John Murphy.
Murphy first filed his suit in 1961. On November 12, 1963, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Nothing further was done in the case throughout all of 1964, and on January 19, 1965, the court dismissed the case for want of prosecution pursuant to F.S.1963, Section 45.19 (1), F.S.A.1
Within 30 days plaintiff filed an un-sworn petition for reinstatement which alleged :
“1. The parties have brought this cause to the point to be set for trial.
“2. The case has not been settled.
“3. The summary dismissal of this suit will cause a severe hardship against the plaintiff.
“4. The parties have been negotiating through their attorneys in an effort to settle the differences on various occasions, but to date have not come to a satisfactory settlement.”
*697The trial court reinstated the case, which then proceeded to trial. Judgment was entered against defendants for $4,312.50 and against defendant London for $1,915.32. We reverse.
Certainly the standard of “good cause” required for reinstatement under Section 45.19 requires the exercise of sound judicial discretion. But this is not an arbitrary or unrestrained discretion.2
The necessary good cause must appear by the petition for reinstatement,3 and must be established by evidentiary support.4
Neither the fact that a case is ready to be set for trial,5 the fact that the dismissal will cause severe hardship,6 nor the fact that the parties have unsuccessfully negotiated for settlement,7 constitutes good cause for reinstatement within the intendment of F.S.1963, Section 45.19(1), F.S.A. Further, the remaining allegation that the case has not been settled is non persuasive as such is the status of every dismissed case where reinstatement is sought.
Thus, we hold that plaintiff’s grounds for reinstatement are insufficient as a matter of law and that the trial court abused its discretion in reinstating this cause.8 Accordingly, the judgment in favor of plaintiff is reversed with instructions to the trial court to dismiss this easel
Reversed.
McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
City OF Miami v. Dade Cnty., 321 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…that the duty to move litigation to a timely conclusion be placed on all those who are a part of the system of justice. I would affirm the order on authority of Allen v. Gaither, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 855. See also Laug v. Murphy, Fla.App.1968, 205 So. 2d 695.…
-
Douglas Slavin, M.D. v. Univ. OF Miami, Inc., 374 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…County School Board, 349 So. 2d 1212, 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Waldman v. Frankel, 343 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Steisel v. Birnholz, 313 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Dade County v. Moreno, 227 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Laug v. Murphy, 205 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Fort Walton Lumber & Supply So. v. Parish, 142 So. 2d 346, 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962).…
-
Brennan v. Ryter, 339 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…ntiff does not respond is insufficient to toll for plaintiff the running of the one year period under the rule. Compare Atlantic Coastline R.R. v. Hill, 76 So. 2d 861 (Fla.1955); Steisel v. Birnholz, 313 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 3 DCA 1975); Laug v. Murphy, 205 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4 DCA 1968); and Ft. Walton Lumber and Supply Co. v. Parish, 142 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1 DCA 1962). Appellant contends that the death of one of the defendants tolled the running of the statute under the Supreme Court’s opinion in Gregory v. Circui…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Little v. Sullivan, 173 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1965)
- Davant v. Coachman Props., Inc., 118 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- LaVonne D. Reilly v. Fuss, 170 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Fort Walton Lumber & Supply Co. v. J. R. Parish, Jr., 142 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Millard B. Conklin v. Boyd, 189 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Gerhard T. Beck and Eva Carol Beck v. Humkey, 146 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Moore v. Gannon, 178 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Landfield v. Sherman, 201 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)