CONTINENTAL AVIATION CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Continental Aviation sought review of a trial court's dismissal without prejudice after plaintiff took a nonsuit when unable to introduce a lost contract. The court affirmed the dismissal and clarified that Florida Rule 1.35 and the Crews v. Dobson decision establish the proper procedure for such situations, eliminating prior confusion about the availability of nonsuits.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice, and the District Court of Appeal's judgment is affirmed. The court notes that new Florida Rule 1.35 and the Crews v. Dobson decision establish the proper procedure for such dismissals and eliminate confusion about nonsuits.
“the trial court had "acted within his discretion in refusing to dismiss the cause with prejudice, and the appellant * * * [had] failed to show an abuse of discretion in that respect."”
Establishes that the trial court's refusal to dismiss with prejudice was discretionary and the appellant failed to demonstrate abuse of that discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring trial, Continental Aviation (plaintiff) attempted to introduce a copy of a contract after the original was lost. The defendant objected, and th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nonsuit cases and more on FLexlaw
This court accepted jurisdiction of this case under Sec. 4(2), Art. V of the Constitution, F.S.A., for the purpose of resolving any confusion that might have arisen, or might still exist, in respect of the question whether nonsuits arc or are not.
Both parties in their briefs stated their awareness that there were cases then pending in this court in which the existence of nonsuits was challenged.
It is important to note that all the briefs in the immediate case were filed before *201our decision in Crews v. Dobson, 177 So.2d 202, was released, 7 July 1965. In that opinion we undertook to settle the controversy and we think we did.
In the trial of the present case the plain-’ tiff had tried to introduce in evidence a copy of the contract on which the action was based after showing that the original was lost. Objection of the defendant was sustained whereupon the plaintiff, to quote from the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, “elected to take a nonsuit * * * [while the defendant] moved the court to reject the request for nonsuit and to grant a dismissal with prejudice.” (Italics supplied.) The District Court of Appeal in a well-considered opinion, 173 So.2d 750 (Fla.App.) held on the pivotal point that the trial court had “acted within his discretion in refusing to dismiss the cause with prejudice, and the appellant * * * [had] failed to show an abuse of discretion in that respect.” However, the court observed that the trial court had “entered an order allowing the nonsuit, denying defendant’s motion for dismissal with prejudice, but ordered the cause dismissed without prejudice.” (Italics supplied.) Thus were blended the principles 'of nonsuit and dismissal of actions.
So the subject of nonsuit was introduced although the direct holding seems to have been, as we have indicated, that the trial court did not err when it dismissed the cause without prejudice.
We have not found reason to disturb the decision of the District Court of Appeal, and we do not condemn it just because of the reference to nonsuits.
We draw attention to new Rule 1.35, 30 F.S.A. on the subject “Dismissal of Actions” which was adopted by this court 28. July 1965, effective 1 January 1966. Although it does not assist us in the determination of the instant case which was in-cepted before adoption of the rule, it is well to observe that it and the decision in Crews v. Dobson will, we fervently hope, dispel uncertainty about the procedure in such situations.
Affirmed.
THORNAL, C. J., and ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peaslee v. Michalski, 184 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…the trial court acted within his discretion in refusing to dismiss the cause with prejudice; and that the appellant had failed to show an abuse of discretion in that respect. Subsequent to the first draft of this opinion, the Florida Supreme Court, 183 So. 2d 200, on February 9, 1966, filed its opinion in Continental Aviation Corp. v. Southern Bell T. & T. Co., in which the [*499] Court, in an opinion by Justice Thomas, affirmed the Third District Court of Appeal. The Court stated: “ * * * The District Cour…
-
Thoman v. Timmothy Ashley, 185 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)…[*202] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Cook v. Lichtblau, Fla. App.1965, 176 So. 2d 523 and Continental Aviation Corp. v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Fla.1966, 183 So. 2d 200. SMITH, C. J., and ANDREWS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Crews v. Dobson, 177 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1965)
- Cont'l Aviation Corp. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 173 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)