Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

855 So. 2d 1238

Ham v. Dunmire

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 14, 2003

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2003-10-14

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 2004

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[a]lthough the party herself was in no way at fault, we affirm the judgment of dismissal, certifying conflict with the Third District on this point.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Ham v. Dunmire

Relies on Philippe v. Lloyd's Aero Boliviano · 639 So. 2d 630 - Marin v. Batista

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-10-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1As a sanction for failing to furnish a witness list, failing to list or exchange exhibits, and failing to answer interrogatories timely, even after an agreed order compelling the answers had been entered, the trial court dismissed appellant’s complaint with prejudice.

¶2Although the party herself was in no way at fault, we affirm the judgment of dismissal, certifying conflict with the Third District on this point. See Marin v. Batista, 639 So.2d 630, 630-31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“Consequently, since the record reflects absolutely no malfeasance on the part of the appellant, we find that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the appellant’s case.”); Dave’s Aluminum Siding, Inc. v. C & M Ventures, 582 So.2d *1239147, 147-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Herr, 589 So.2d 542, 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

¶3Affirmed.

BARFIELD, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
/855/so2d/1238 · .json · Public domain