H. J. GOODWYN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
LEESBURG CITRUS GROWERS ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a civil suit where the plaintiff's counsel failed to appear when the case was called for trial on the first day of court term. The court held that the trial court properly dismissed the case and correctly denied the plaintiff's later motion to reinstate, establishing that attorneys have a duty to appear in court when their cases are called and cannot rely on the clerk to notify them of trial dates.
The trial court committed no reversible error in dismissing the cause when called on the docket after the plaintiff's counsel failed to respond, nor in denying the motion to reinstate filed more than four months after dismissal. The court rejected the argument that the clerk had a duty to notify counsel of the trial date.
“There is no duty devolving upon the Clerk of the Circuit Court to keep counsel advised as to the status of cases pending in which they are employed as attorneys.”
Establishes that the clerk has no obligation to notify counsel of trial dates or case status
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA civil suit was pending in Lake County Circuit Court with the defendant as plaintiff below and counsel located in Hillsborough County. The plaintiff …
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
In this case civil suit was pending in the Circuit Court of Lake County. The defendant in error was plaintiff in the court below and counsel resided in Hillsborough .County. After the case was at issue plaintiff filed a praecipe for same to be docketed for trial and requested the Clerk of the Circuit Court to advise counsel when the case was set for trial. The Clerk docketed the case for trial as requested. The term of court came on to be held and when the docket was sounded by the presiding Judge on the first day of the term of court ■no one answered for the plaintiff. Thereupon defendant moved that the cause be dismissed. The court entered the following order:
“$2843. H. J. Goodwyn vs. Leesburg Citrus Grower's Association.
The above cause being called for trial on opening of court, and no one answering for plaintiff, it is, upon motion of defendant, Considered, Ordered and Adjudged that said cause be and the same is hereby dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff.
J. C. B. Koonce, Judge.”
That order was entered on October 8th, 1929. On the *65124th of February, 1930, after the expiration of the term of court at which the order of dismissal was entered, plaintiff filed motion to vacate the order dismissing the cause and to re-instate the cause on the docket.
There is a contention presented in the motion that the court committed error in dismissing the case because the Clerk had not complied with counsel’s request and because the court had summarily dismissed the case upon motion of the defendant when the docket was sounded on the first day of the term of court. The court denied the motion and writ of error was taken to the judgment dismissing the cause.
There is no duty devolving upon the Clerk of the Circuit Court to keep counsel advised as to the status of cases pending in which they are employed as attorneys. It is the duty of counsel who are employed in litigation to be present in the court room when cases in which they appear as counsel are to be called on the docket.
Motion to re-instate in this case was made more than four months after the case was dismissed.
The court committed no reversible error in dismissing the cause when the same was called on the docket on the first day of the term of the court, after same had been docketed at the request of the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond. The motion to re-instate the cause was without legal merit and, therefore, no reversible error occurred in the court’s order denying the motion.
The judgment of dismissal should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
*652Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Popkin v. Crispen, 213 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…never compel attendance of counsel at hearing. Florida courts have held that the failure to attend certain types of hearings will result in the dismissal of a cause of action with prejudice. See Goodwyn v. Leesburg Citrus Growers’ Association, 1931, 101 Fla. 649, 135 So. 129; Bader Bros. Van Lines, Inc. v. Jay, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 867. The plaintiffs next contend that under the applicable statutes relating to dismissal of actions for want of prosecution (F.S. Section 45.19, F.S.A.), which have been ca…
-
Kizer v. Martin, 132 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)…’clock] P.M. or thereafter upon one week’s notice by the clerk to the parties, which sounding and setting of causes shall be by the judge, or by the clerk of said court in the judge’s absence.” The case of Goodwyn v. Leesburg Citrus Growers’ Ass’n, 101 Fla. 649, 135 So. 129, in which the Supreme Court of Florida said that, “It is the duty of counsel who are employed in litigation to be present in the courtroom when cases in which they appear as counsel are to be called on the docket,” is not factually in p…