Cemex Construction Materials v. Ross
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Opinion of the CourtEvander, J.
Appellant, Cemex Construction Materials Florida, LLC, contends that the trial court abused its discretion by vacating a final judgment based on the unsworn representation of Appellees’1 counsel, Thomas Ranew, that he had not received notice of the final hearing. Because Ce-*702mex did not object to the trial court’s failure to place Ranew under oath,2 we affirm.
Attorneys are officers of the court and, as such, their representations to the court have been described by the High Court as being “virtually made under oath.” Holloway v. Arkansas, 485 U.S. 475, 486, 98 S.Ct. 1178, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978).…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Holloway v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Reddick v. ReddickDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999
- Cedar Mountain Estates, LLC v. Loan One, LLCDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2009
- Arnold v. ArnoldDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004
- Taylor v. TaylorDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dickson v. DicksonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015