EUGENE K. TURRENTINE, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN TURRENTINE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND JOHN W. TURRENTINE ET AL., APPELLEES
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 appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute but modified the dismissal to be without prejudice, finding the original dismissal with prejudice was improper. The court also affirmed the denial of the appellant's petition to reinstate the case.
The appellate court held that the trial court properly dismissed the case for failure to prosecute but erred in dismissing it with prejudice. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition to reinstate the case.
“Based upon our review of the record, the briefs, and the oral arguments of the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of 12 April 1968 properly dismissed the cause for failure to prosecute, but improperly dismissed the cause with prejudice.”
Establishes the court's finding that the dismissal for failure to prosecute was correct, but the 'with prejudice' aspect was an error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff (appellant) filed a lawsuit, but the trial court dismissed the case for want of prosecution under Rule 1.420(e). The dismissal was enter…
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 Dismissal For Failure To Prosecute cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, the plaintiff below, presents for review an order of the trial court dated 12 April 1968 dismissing the cause for want of prosecution under Rule 1.420(e), RCP (as amended to 1 January 1967) 30 F.S.A., and an order of the trial court dated 4 June 1968 which denied the appellant’s petition to reinstate the cause. The order of 12 April 1968 dismissed the cause “with prejudice” for failure to prosecute.
Based upon our review of the record, the briefs, and the oral arguments of the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of 12 April 1968 properly dismissed the cause for failure to prosecute, but improperly dismissed the cause with prejudice. See May v. State ex rel. Ervin, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 126. For this reason, the order is hereby modified to eliminate the words “with prejudice.” As thus modified, the said order is hereby affirmed. With respect to the order of 4 June 1968 denying the appellant’s petition to reinstate the cause, it is our opinion, that no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated m connection with the entry of said order, and it is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
CROSS, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.