Legal Opinion

Wells v. Van Arnam

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 9, 1973No. R-122PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

Affirmed. The “action” contemplated by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e), 30 F.S.A., in prosecuting a case of necessity involves actions which result in contact by one party with the opposing party or the court. A party cannot for a year involve himself solely in the preparation of a case, never initiate any action with the opposing party and then argue that the case should not be dismissed as he, without the participation of the opposing counsel or the court, has been contacting witnesses, researching the case or planning trial strategy. See Adams Engineering Company v. Construction…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Eastern Elevator, Inc. v. PageSupreme Court of Florida · 1972
  2. Adams Engineering Co. v. Construction Products Corp.Supreme Court of Florida · 1963
  3. Musselman Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. RadziwonSupreme Court of Florida · 1972

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Bakewell v. ShepardDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1975
  2. Castle v. StruhlDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
  3. Eddings v. DavidsonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
  4. Leverenz v. SchmiederDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
  5. Rapport v. WeisbergDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1975

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API