ROLLO KARKEET, APPELLANT,
v.
LEWIS SNYDER, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, holding that plaintiff's unexplained eighteen-month period of inaction after trial commenced warranted dismissal under Rule 1.420(e), RCP.
A motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute must be granted when a plaintiff allows more than eighteen months to pass without action and shows no good cause in writing for the delay.
[1] A motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute should be granted when plaintiff fails to take action for more than eighteen months after trial commences and provides no wri…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed suit in 1962, trial began in 1966, and after plaintiff's motion the case was returned to the rules for further discovery. Plaintiff th…
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
This is an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and was made pursuant to Rule 1.420(e), RCP, 30 F.S.A. An examination of the record reveals that this cause was filed in 1962 and finally came on for trial in 1966. A trial was begun in this cause and prior to the completion of plaintiff’s case the cause was, upon plaintiff’s motion, “returned to the rules” for *303further discovery.1 Thereafter, a period of more than eighteen months passed without any action by the plaintiff. This period of inaction was followed by defendant’s motion of dismissal for failure to prosecute. The motion should have been granted immediately inasmuch as no good cause in writing was shown why the action should remain pending.
After the defendant moved pursuant to the rule, the court delayed ruling thereon. This delay of the court in no way affects the right of the defendant to a dismissal. Therefore, the order denying the motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions to enter an order of dismissal dismissing the cause pursuant to Rule 1.-420(e), RCP.
Reversed and remanded.
BARKDULL, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Overseas Dev., Inc. v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 433 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…note omitted] 2. Koppers Co. v. Victoire Development Corp., 284 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1973); Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Porter, 328 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Crouse-Hinds Co. v. Capellia, 302 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Karkeet v. Snyder, 275 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Shalabey v. Memorial Hospital of the South Broward Hospital District, 253 So. 2d 712, 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). See also Little v. Sullivan, 173 So. 2d 135 (Fla.1965); Equity Capital Co. v. 601 West 26 Corp., 223 So. 2d 762 (Fla.…
-
Weitzel v. Hargrove, 543 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…whether good cause was shown why this action should remain pending. Industrial Trucks of Fla., Inc. v. Gonzalez, 351 So. 2d 744, 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Porter, 328 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Karkeet v. Snyder, 275 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Second, the sole showing of good cause why this action should remain pending, notwithstanding the lack of record activity of [*393] over one year, was that counsel for both parties had been in contact with one another during th…
-
Soshana Dashew v. Hy Marks, 352 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…e served by allowing the defendant his day in court finds no support in the reported cases, and is clearly not a basis for reinstatement contemplated by the rule.3 Reversed, with directions to reinstate the order of dismissal. . Karkeet v. Snyder, 275 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973); Moore v. Gannon, 178 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1965). . Elmer A. Yelvington & Sons, Inc. v. Sheridan, 65 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1953). Also see: Dobson v. Crews, 164 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964). . Laug v. Murphy, 205 So. 2d 695 (Fl…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence