Excusable Neglect

1,860 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 85 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Consol. Freightways Corp. OF Del. v. Larson
  827 F.2d 916· 3d Cir.· 1987-08-28 ·cited 26×·via Excusable Neglect Standard
  The court held that the inadvertent misdirection of a notice of appeal, resulting in untimely filing, can constitute excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) when counsel has made substantial good faith efforts to comply.
• Ward D. Zimmerman v. Vinylgrain Indus. OF Jacksonville, Inc.
  464 So. 2d 1353· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-03-19 ·cited 26×
  The appellate court reversed a trial court's denial of a motion to vacate a default judgment. The court found that the appellant may have had grounds for relief due to alleged misrepresentation by the appellee regarding the amount owed on a mortgage, warranting a hearing on the m
• Brooks v. Britton
  669 F.2d 665· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's failure to file a motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal rendered any implicit finding of excusable neglect ineffectual.
• Martine Lacore v. Giralda Bake Shop, Inc.
  407 So. 2d 275· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-12-08 ·cited 26×
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion for relief from a default judgment, finding that the appellant's attorney's advice not to respond did not constitute excusable neglect and that the claim under rule 1.540(b)(3) was not sufficiently established.
• Wyzik v. The Emp. Benefit Plan OF Crane Co.
  663 F.2d 348· 1st Cir.· 1981-11-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a notice of appeal filed one day late cannot be considered timely, even under prior rules allowing for excusable neglect, due to amendments to Rule 4(a).
• In re Stone v. Stone
  588 F.2d 1316· 10th Cir.· 1978-11-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a defendant seeking to set aside a default judgment must demonstrate both excusable neglect and a meritorious defense, and general allegations are insufficient to establish a meritorious defense.
• Country Clubs OF Sarasota, Ltd. v. Zaun Equip., Inc.
  350 So. 2d 539· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-10-05 ·cited 26×
  Country Clubs of Sarasota, a limited partnership, appealed the denial of its motion to set aside a default judgment in a garnishment action. The court held that while service on the partnership's former general partner was effective, the trial court abused its discretion in refus
• NEW Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Kimbrell
  343 So. 2d 107· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-03-11 ·cited 26×
  New Hampshire Insurance Company sought dismissal of a wrongful death action against its insured (who died before answering) under Florida Rule 1.260, claiming the plaintiff failed to substitute the deceased's estate within 90 days of the death suggestion. The First District rever
• Scott v. Premium Dev., Inc.
  328 So. 2d 557· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-03-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the default and consequent judgment canceling the mechanics lien, as the appellant failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense.
• Bryant v. Elliott
  467 F.2d 1109· 5th Cir.· 1972-10-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appeal, though slightly late, should be remanded to allow the petitioner to seek an extension of time based on excusable neglect.
• Lieberman v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  315 F.2d 403· 2d Cir.· 1963-04-02 ·cited 26×
  An amendment to a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) for clerical mistakes does not restart the time for appeal, but a district court may grant an extension for excusable neglect under Rule 73(a) in unique circumstances where a party reasonably misunderstands th
• Molton G. Smith v. Stone
  308 F.2d 15· 9th Cir.· 1962-09-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside a summary judgment due to the appellant's counsel's failure to follow court rules and file timely opposition.
• Print Carter O'Neal v. United States
  264 F.2d 809· 5th Cir.· 1959-03-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that an oral notice of appeal, even if intended by counsel, is insufficient to perfect an appeal under Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the appeal is dismissed for want of timely notice.
• John E. Smith's Sons Co. v. Lattimer Foundry & Mach. Co.
  239 F.2d 815· 3d Cir.· 1956-12-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that an order striking a motion for a new trial, which was untimely under Rule 59(b) and lacked the required showing for relief under Rule 60(b), is an appealable order.
• Elliott v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC
  31 So. 3d 304· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-04-07 ·cited 25×
  The Elliotts appealed a foreclosure judgment entered after their default was not vacated. The court reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to vacate default because the Elliotts demonstrated excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due
• In re Williams v. EMC Mortg. Corp.
  216 F.3d 1295· 11th Cir.· 2000-07-06 ·cited 25×
  Joseph Arthur Williams appealed the dismissal of his Chapter 12 bankruptcy petition, but filed his notice of appeal seventeen days after the bankruptcy court's May 21, 1999 order denying his motion for reconsideration, exceeding the ten-day deadline under Federal Rule of Bankrupt
• Liberty Commc'ns, Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp.
  733 So. 2d 571· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-05-07 ·cited 25×
  Liberty Communications and Thomas Hitchens appealed an order compelling arbitration and dismissing their complaint against MCI Telecommunications. The court held that while Liberty's claims could be compelled to arbitration under the contract, Hitchens—who signed the arbitration
• Paleias v. Wang
  632 So. 2d 1132· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-03-09 ·cited 25×
  The court addressed whether personal service on a nonresident defendant outside Florida requires an allegation of nonresidency in the complaint when the defendant committed a tortious act in Florida. The court held that under Florida's long arm statute §48.193, an allegation of n
• Braxton v. United States & Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
  817 F.2d 238· 3d Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 25×
  Inadvertence in monitoring service of process, even with a private server's unexplained failure, does not constitute good cause for extending the service period under Rule 4(j).
• Duckworth v. Ingrid O. Duckworth
  414 So. 2d 562· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-04-27 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the portion of a default judgment awarding child custody, even though the basis for vacating the default was the attorney's mistaken view of the law.
• Camps v. C & P Tel. Co.
  692 F.2d 120· D.C. Cir.· 1981-12-31 ·cited 25×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court's dismissal should be affirmed, but without prejudice to the appellant filing a motion to reinstate the case under Rule 60(b).
• Am. Nat'l Bank v. LAU
  268 So. 2d 567· Fla. 2d DCA· 1972-06-23 ·cited 25×
  A property owner sought to vacate a foreclosure sale completed in 1965, claiming the sale price of $511 was grossly inadequate compared to the property's fair market value of $10,500. The court held that gross inadequacy of price alone cannot void a judicial sale, and that subseq
• Files v. City OF Rockford
  440 F.2d 811· 7th Cir.· 1971-03-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting leave to file a notice of appeal instanter, as no excusable neglect was demonstrated, and therefore the appeal was untimely and jurisdiction was lacking.
• Acosta v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. in Tr. for the benefit of the Certificateholders for Ameriquest Mortg. Sec. Tr. 2006-M3
  88 So. 3d 415· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-05-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a rule 1.540(b) motion for relief from a foreclosure judgment without an evidentiary hearing, where the motion alleged excusable neglect and meritorious defenses.
• Metcalfe v. Spencer LEE, M.D. & Mark A. Pinsky, M.D., P.A.
  952 So. 2d 624· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-04-04 ·cited 24×
  Barbara Ann Metcalfe's medical malpractice suit was dismissed when she died and her counsel failed to timely complete the substitution of a personal representative, though he did file a motion for substitution within the required 90-day period. The Fourth District reversed, holdi
• Gillespie v. The City OF Destin
  946 So. 2d 1195· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-12-28 ·cited 24×
  Gillespie petitioned for certiorari to quash a circuit court's dismissal of his administrative appeal for filing his initial brief one day late. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that dismissal was an improper sanction where the appellant filed only hours late without a f
• Cann v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs.
  813 So. 2d 237· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-04-05 ·cited 24×
  Larry and Diana Cann appealed the Department of Children and Family Services' dismissal of their late administrative hearing request to contest denial of their medical foster home relicensure. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Florida law mandates dismissal of untime
• Trooper Alvin T. Pontarelli v. Stone
  930 F.2d 104· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a notice of appeal using "et al." is insufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction for unnamed parties and that mistaken reliance on "et al." does not constitute excusable neglect for extending the appeal deadline. The court also affirmed that sex discriminati
• Meek v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  908 F.2d 1540· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in its legal analysis of the third Gingles prong by failing to recognize that coalitions can form a legally significant voting bloc and that the county's reliance on existing district lines was misplaced when assessing the potential fo
• Kraus v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  899 F.2d 1360· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the 'unique circumstances' exception does not apply to excuse an untimely notice of appeal when the attorney's failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration was due to miscalculation of time limits and failure to update address, rather than solely relian
• Reinsurance Co. OF Am., Inc. v. Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat (Administration OF State Insurance)
  808 F.2d 1249· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, as the defendant's actions did not demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause.
• Shepard Claims Serv., Inc. v. William Darrah & Assocs.
  796 F.2d 190· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that denying a motion to set aside an entry of default is an abuse of discretion when the plaintiff suffers no prejudice and the defendant has a meritorious defense, unless the default resulted from willful failure to appear or plead.
• Schanen v. United States Dep't OF Just.
  762 F.2d 805· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the government's motion for relief from judgment, nor was it required to consider new FOIA exemptions raised for the first time on appeal.
• United States v. ONE 1978 Piper Navajo PA-31
  748 F.2d 316· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to set aside a default judgment because the claimant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for the delay in filing and did not present a meritorious defense.
• Okeechobee Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Barnett Bank OF Palm Beach Cnty.
  434 So. 2d 334· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-06-15 ·cited 24×
  Okeechobee Insurance Agency appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to vacate a default judgment entered on a counterclaim by Barnett Bank. The court reversed, holding that Rule 1.500(b) requires both notice and a hearing before entering a default against a party who has a
• Jordan v. United States
  694 F.2d 833· D.C. Cir.· 1982-11-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying relief under Rule 60(b) from the dismissal of the complaint due to a technical defect in service on the United States, where the failure was not attributable to the appellants and the government suffered no prejudice.
• Jayre Inc. & Hilliard Herzog v. Wachovia Bank & Tr. Co., N.A.
  420 So. 2d 937· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-10-26 ·cited 24×
  A bank sued defendants for converting a $87,200 erroneous transfer, seeking treble damages and punitive damages under Florida's theft statute. The trial court entered a default judgment for $261,600 without submitting the damages question to a jury, despite the bank's demand for
• Marshall v. Lancarte
  632 F.2d 1196· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying prejudgment interest on back wages awarded under section 17 of the FLSA, but affirmed the district court's findings on backpay and other violations.
• United States v. Ford
  627 F.2d 807· 7th Cir.· 1980-08-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite a potentially untimely notice of appeal, and that the transfer of the case was proper under Rule 20. The court affirmed the modified sentence.
• Caribbean Agencies, Inc. v. Agri-Export, Inc.
  384 So. 2d 281· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-06-11 ·cited 24×
• Tremblay v. Marck
  378 So. 2d 855· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-12-19 ·cited 24×
  Appellants obtained a default judgment against appellees in a specific performance action. Appellees moved to set aside the default, claiming excusable neglect due to their attorney's sudden disappearance, but without adequately pleading a meritorious defense. The trial court vac
• Price Moorer v. Griffin
  575 F.2d 87· 6th Cir.· 1978-04-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appeal should be remanded to the district court to determine if the notice of appeal was timely filed or if excusable neglect justifies an extension.
• Eli L. Medunic and Dolores M. Medunic v. Lederer
  533 F.2d 891· 3d Cir.· 1976-04-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to set aside default solely on the grounds of the insurance company's negligence, without considering prejudice to the plaintiffs or the existence of a meritorious defense.
• Merrill Lynch v. Kurtenbach
  525 F.2d 1179· 8th Cir.· 1975-11-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed within the time prescribed by Rule 4(a), Fed.R.App.P., and no timely motion for extension based on excusable neglect was filed.
• Baez v. S. S. Kresge Co.
  518 F.2d 349· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-02 ·cited 24×
  A defendant's appearance must be responsive to a plaintiff's formal court action to trigger notice requirements before a default judgment. Neglect is generally not excusable when internal procedural safeguards are lacking.
• Blaine J. Lord v. Helmandollar
  348 F.2d 780· D.C. Cir.· 1965-06-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a motion to vacate and re-enter judgment does not restart the time for filing an appeal if the motion is filed after the appeal period has expired, absent specific exceptions.
• Ohliger v. United States & Oscar Redding
  308 F.2d 667· 2d Cir.· 1962-10-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the denial of the motion to vacate dismissal was not an abuse of discretion, as the appellant's consistent failure to prosecute and respond to discovery did not constitute excusable neglect.
• Flett v. W. A. Alexander & Co.
  302 F.2d 321· 7th Cir.· 1962-04-24 ·cited 24×
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for relief under Rule 60(b) from a final judgment dismissing the action.
• United States v. Florio Isabella
  251 F.2d 223· 2d Cir.· 1958-01-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a late-filed notice of appeal, even by a few days, deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction, and there is no provision for excusable neglect in criminal appeals.
• Bowers v. E. J. Rose MFG. Co.
  149 F.2d 612· 9th Cir.· 1945-04-21 ·cited 24×
  A summary judgment based on a failure to file a bill of particulars or respond to requests for admissions requires strict compliance with procedural rules, and conflicting affidavits on material facts preclude summary judgment.