Hirsch v. Muldowney
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Neace v. Neace, Unpublished Decision (1-15-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
- Heinz v. Watson (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
- Golden Triad Carriers, Inc. v. Paco American Corp. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
- SOUTHWINDS RIDING ACD. v. Schneider (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
- MIAMI NAT. BANK v. Greenfield (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Nathan B. HIRSCH, M.D., Appellant,
v.
Young H. MULDOWNEY, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Thornton & Herndon and John Edward, Miami, for appellant.
John Muldowney, Miami, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The trial court should have granted defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution where (1) the last record activity prior to the filing of that motion was an order continuing trial filed more than one year before, and (2) plaintiff did not show good cause in writing, at least five days before the hearing on the motion, why the action should remain pending. Fla.R.Civ.P. *767 1.420(e); Govayra v. Straubel, 466 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 1985). Further, it was plaintiff's burden, not the court's, to renotice the case for trial since it was the plaintiff who requested the continuance due to withdrawal of counsel. See Govayra; Bogart v. F.B. Condominiums, Inc., 438 So.2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 449 So.2d 264 (Fla. 1984).
Reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.