SARAH HOLLIDAY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Trial court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over wrongful death action against the State is rendered moot by subsequent legislation allowing reinstatement, and the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to permit reinstatement in trial court.
An appeal from dismissal for lack of jurisdiction becomes moot when intervening legislation provides a statutory mechanism for reinstatement, and the court dismisses without prejudice to allow the plaintiff to pursue reinstatement in the trial court.
[1] Intervening legislation providing a statutory reinstatement procedure for previously dismissed cases renders a pending appeal moot, warranting dismissal without prejudice…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff's son died on August 9, 1969, and plaintiff brought a wrongful death action against the State of Florida. The trial court dismissed the acti…
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 Mootness cases and more on FLexlaw
The trial court ruled it had no jurisdiction over this action against the State of Florida for the allegedly wrongful death of plaintiff’s son on August 9, 1969 and dismissed the cause with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed from that judgment and the state filed cross-assignments of error.
After the appeal was lodged in this court the Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 71-165, Laws of Florida. It recited that if cases such as this have been dismissed, “such action shall be reinstated by order of the court upon the filing of a petition by the plaintiff during the period between July 1, 1971 and July 1, 1972.”
We previously denied a plaintiff’s motion to temporarily relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for the purpose of entertaining a petition by plaintiff for reinstate*270ment pursuant to Chapter 71-165 because the state argued it had certain valid and proper arguments which should be heard and disposed of as a result of its cross-assignments of error.
We have heard those arguments and are of the opinion that this appeal is moot as a result of Chapter 71-165 and plaintiff’s expressed desire to petition the trial court for reinstatement. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff to apply for reinstatement of the cause by filing a proper and timely petition in the trial court.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Feltner, 266 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1972)…ws 1971, ch. 71-165, thereby vesting this Court with jurisdiction. Article V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution. We agree that passage of Laws 1971, ch. 71-165 rendered moot the other issues raised before the District Court. See Holliday v. State, 257 So. 2d 269 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1972). The Legislature expressly stated that it sought to revive the prior causes of action because no provision had been made for a savings clause in Laws 1969, ch. 69-357. We cannot agree with the Department that the new act constit…