PHYLLIS A. SCHUBERT STEETLE, APPELLANT,

v.

DONALD A. SCHUBERT, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Lopez v. S. Coatings, Inc., 580 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
  …393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). In addition, the court’s partial affirmance makes it necessary to reach the blatant improprieties in the manner in which the summary judgment was considered and granted. On the authority of such cases as Stanley v. Beilis, 311 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) and Gaymon v. Quinn Menhaden Fisheries, Inc., 108 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), I would hold that the plaintiff’s motion for continuance of the hearing so that additional opposing affidavits could have been timely presented sho…
• Carpenter v. Carpenter, 451 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
  …s, however, may require a continuance where there has not been sufficient time to complete discovery and properly prepare for trial and where the continuance causes no substantial prejudice or injustice to the opposing party. See, Stanley v. Bellis, 311 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). On the record before us, we find no indication that granting the wife’s motion for continuance would have so prejudiced the husband. On the peculiar facts of this case, including the injection of new issues shortly before trial…
• Feather v. In re Est. of Harry D. Sanko, 390 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
  …A 1975). . F.R.P. & G.P. 5.040; § 731.301(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1977). . The shortness of the time period is no doubt why rule 5.040 requires inclusion in the notice of the consequences of failure to timely file defenses thereto. . Stanley v. Bellis, 311 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); In Re Estate of Rutherford, 304 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); In Re Estate of Tomlinson, 186 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). See In Re Estate of Ulm, 345 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). See also Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.090(b); McWhorter…

Authorities Cited

• The N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Oates, 141 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1939)