ZEKE WILLIAMS ET UX., APPELLANTS,
v.
EDNA GUNN ET AL., ETC., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants herein seek review of the trial court’s order finally disposing of the sale proceeds in a quiet title and partition action and denying appellants’ motion for an extension of time for final disposition.
The matter of granting or denying motions to extend times for hearings or motions for a continuance is one which rests primarily in the judicial discretion of the trial judge. A gross or flagrant abuse of such judicial discretion must be adequately demonstrated by the complaining party before this Court will undertake to substitute its judgment for that of the presiding judge below. In view of the fact that this case has been stretched out in time for a period of almost three years and appellants waited until just before, three days in fact, the matter was brought on for final disposition before asking for a continuance, we do not believe that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for extension of time.
Appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error in the proceedings below, the order appealed herein is accordingly affirmed.
SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Thompson v. Gen. Motors Corp., Inc., 439 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…or’s statements concerning counsel’s health were said to be “substantially in accord with his letter.” The trial court has broad discretion in granting or denying a continuance. Edwards v. Pratt, 335 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Williams v. Gunn, 279 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Yet, there are instances in which a trial court’s denial of a motion for continuance may be an abuse of discretion. In Courtney v. Central Trust Co., 112 Fla. 298, 150 So. 276 (1933), the supreme court held that it was an abuse…
-
Edwards v. Pratt, 335 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…of this discretion must be demonstrated by the complaining party before this court will substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge. S & S Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hirschfield, Fla.App. 1969, 226 So. 2d 874; Williams v. Gunn, Fla.App. 1973, 279 So. 2d 69. Further, requests for a second continuance are seldom favored. McWhorter v. McWhorter, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So. 2d 504. In view of the facts that (1) appellant, after new local counsel was retained, was granted a continuance rescheduling the final h…
-
Kasper Instruments, Inc. v. Maurice, 394 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…r use at trial, the continuance was denied. The granting of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court whose decision will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of gross or [*1127] flagrant abuse. Williams v. Gunn, 279 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Under these circumstances we find no abuse of discretion. Moreover, the request for continuance was based on an unsworn motion, it failed to state the substance of Mrs. Knud-son’s expected testimony or how it would differ from h…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence