From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lanahan v. Lentini

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 16, 1984
457 So. 2d 589 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 84-531.

October 16, 1984.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Dick C.P. Lantz, J.

Donald F. March and Daniel A. Sorrentino, Miami, for appellant.

Daniel Mones and Frank M. Marks, Miami, for appellees.

Before NESBITT, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.


The trial court's order dismissing the instant case is reversed upon a holding that a trial court is precluded "from exercising its supposed inherent, discretionary power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute when, as in this case, there is activity of record within one year prior to the dismissal," American Salvage Jobbing Co. v. Salomon, 367 So.2d 716, 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); see Rivera v. A.M.I.F., Inc., 417 So.2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and this rule cannot be circumvented under the guise of dismissing the case on the ground that the plaintiff failed to respond to the court's order requiring it to explain its inaction in the case where such inaction was for a period of less than a year.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Lanahan v. Lentini

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 16, 1984
457 So. 2d 589 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Lanahan v. Lentini

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND LANAHAN, F/U/B/O PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Oct 16, 1984

Citations

457 So. 2d 589 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Glassalum Engineering Corp. v. 392208 Ontario Ltd.

Although almost two years elapsed between the filing of the complaint and service of it upon the appellees,…

Feldman v. Renault Motors

The law is clear that an action may not be dismissed for lack of prosecution when the period of inactivity is…