Pollock v. Pollack
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Mitchell v. Coker Fuel Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
- Knowles v. Gilbert (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
- Noughton v. Hooker (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
- Florida Bar v. O'Connor (Fla. 2006)
- City of Miami v. Katz (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
- Carter v. DeCarion (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
- Colonial Press of Miami, Inc. v. Roberts (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
- Fund Insurance Companies v. Preskitt (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)
- Cypress Corporation of Florida v. Smith (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)
- Equity Capital Co. v. 601 West 26 Corp. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)
- Passio v. Crowell (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
- Beigel v. Simon (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
- City of Miami v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)
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
Herman POLLOCK and Lillian Pollock, Petitioners,
v.
Hymie POLLACK and Sara Pollack, Respondents.
Herman POLLACK, Petitioner,
v.
Hyman POLLACK and Sara Pollack, Respondents.
Supreme Court of Florida.
W.J. Gardiner, Daytona Beach, Hull, Landis, Graham & French and John L. Graham, De Land, for petitioners.
Norton Josephson, Daytona Beach, for respondents.
HOBSON, Justice.
In Pollack v. Pollock[1] the District Court of Appeal, First District, held that the Supreme Court of Florida had abandoned the position it took in the case of Hancock v. Hancock,[2] to the effect that under provisions of the abatement statute (now § 45.19, F.S.A.):
"* * * the absence from the record of any affirmative action having been taken in the cause for a period of three years automatically abates the cause * * *."
thus rendering it legally dead, subject only to an order of dismissal upon proper motion at any time after the abatement.
We agree with the District Court's determination that we repudiated and receded from the Hancock rule in Scarlett v. Frederick[3], Dudemaine v. Shaw[4], and May v. State[5]. The existing rule on this point of law was correctly restated by the District Court when it said:
"F.S. § 45.19, F.S.A., is not self-executing but requires the moving party to seek dismissal before any affirmative action in the prosecution of the cause is taken subsequent to the required period for abatement." 110 So.2d 474, 477.
*762 Since the requisite direct conflict is not present, certiorari is hereby denied as to both cases consolidated herein.
Certiorari denied.
THOMAS, C.J., and TERRELL, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.
NOTES
[1] Fla.App. 1959, 110 So.2d 474. What was said there is equally applicable to the cause of Pollack v. Pollock, Fla.App. 1959, 110 So.2d 477.
[2] 1937, 128 Fla. 684, 175 So. 734, 738.
[3] 1941, 147 Fla. 407, 3 So.2d 165.
[4] 1944, 153 Fla. 899, 16 So.2d 114.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.