Legal Opinion · Concurrence

McMillan v. Horan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 25, 1994No. 93-573Published

1ConcurrenceGriffin, Judge

I write with some embarrassment to confess that I do not understand footnote two of the supreme court’s opinion in Kozel, and I am a little worried about how it will be interpreted. The supreme court recently took the trouble to revise this footnote, so obviously they understand it, but it has me stumped. The court observes:

[Wjhen the circumstances involve the dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint, there are no similar notice requirements. The rules of civil procedure do not require the defendant to file a motion for default or the court to notify the plaintiff that an *1092application for default…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Sunbeam Tel. Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  2. Sekot Laboratories, Inc. v. GleasonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
  3. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Montgomery WardDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API