BUSTER MCILVEEN, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, ETC., AND ENRIQUE RIVERA, 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 court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff's counsel sought a continuance for trial due to the plaintiff's unavailability, but the trial court denied it and dismissed the case for fai…
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 Failure To Prosecute cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff-appellant seeks review of an order of dismissal for failure to prosecute and an order denying his motion for rehearing.
Plaintiff filed suit for damages as a result of injuries sustained while alighting from an M.T.A. bus. After plaintiff’s counsel was granted several continuances, the cause was convened for the purpose of trial on July 18, 1972 at which time plaintiff’s counsel announced that he was unable to produce the plaintiff for trial or to proceed in the prosecution of the action. He then moved for a continuance which was denied. On July 20, 1972, the trial judge dismissed the cause for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and on September 15, 1972 denied plaintiff’s motion for rehearing thereon.
Plaintiff-appellant alleges it was error for the trial court to have dismissed the cause for failure to prosecute and deny plaintiff’s motion for' another continuance. We find to the contrary.
A search of the record reflects that plaintiff had been granted three continuances *845prior to July 18, 1972 and at least on two occasions the plaintiff was not available to his attorney and failed to appear in court. Further, plaintiff’s counsel frankly admitted that his client had no definite place of abode and, therefore, could not be easily notified when to appear for trial.
We find no abuse of discretion m the trial court’s dismissing the case. See Stern v. Commercial Construction Corp., Fla.App.1968, 268 So.2d 549.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 758 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See McIlveen v. Metropolitan Dade County, 276 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Stern v. Commercial Constr. Corp., 268 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). STONE, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Emil Aescht v. Zach Aubrey Weaver & the Federated Mut. Implement & Hardware Ins. Co., 268 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)