Polland v. Visual Graphics Corp., s. 70--59
| Decision Date | 10 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | 70--60,Nos. 70--59,s. 70--59 |
| Citation | 240 So.2d 835 |
| Parties | Alvin POLLAND and Sophia Polland, his wife, Appellants, v. VISUAL GRAPHICS CORP., a New York corporation, and Murray Friedel, Appellees. STATMASTER CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Appellant, v. VISUAL GRAPHICS CORP., a New York corporation, and Murray Friedel, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Herman Grayson, Miami Beach, for appellants.
Charles C. Papy, Jr., Coral Gables, Richard M. Gale, Miami, for Visual Graphics.
Bernard A. Weider, for Murray Friedel.
Before PEARSON, C.J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
These consolidated appeals are brought to review identical orders denying the plaintiff's motions to vacate orders dismissing their complaints. The circumstances out of which the motions to vacate arose were that after the filing of the complaint in each case the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. These motions to dismiss were properly noticed for hearing before Judge Fritz Gordon, one of the judges of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. Because of Judge Gordon's illness, the motion calendar on which the motions had been placed was not heard. On the day the motion was to be heard a notice appeared in the Miami Review and Daily Record, a daily newspaper which has been designated by the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit as its official newspaper, which stated 'All motions previously noticed for said date will automatically be carried over to the following Thursday, October 2, 1969.' Thereafter a second notice appeared in the Miami Review announcing that on October 2, 1969, all motions would be heard by Judge William A. Herin, Acting for Judge Gordon. At the hearing on October 2, 1969, the defendants appeared and the plaintiffs did not; thereafter the motions to dismiss the complaints were granted with prejudice. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed motions to vacate the orders of dismissal and filed affidavits in support of the motions. Affidavits were also filed in opposition to the motion to vacate, and a hearing was had on the motions to vacate which were denied. These appeals followed.
The facts outlined appear from the record and are not controverted on appeal. We hold that orders denying plaintiffs' motions to vacate the orders of dismissal must be reversed under authority of Rule 1.090(d), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. The rule referred to is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp.
...4th DCA 1974) (ethical considerations forbid ex parte applications to judge where dismissal is in issue); Polland v. Visual Graphics, Corp., 240 So.2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (entry of order on motion to dismiss error where failure to comply with notice We hold, therefore, that once a court ......
-
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Magnuson, 72--876
...v. Brill, 1939, 137 Fla. 287, 188 So. 205; State Dept. of Transportation v. Plunske, Fla.App.1972, 267 So.2d 337; Polland v. Visual Graphics Corp., Fla.App.1970, 240 So.2d 835; Prunty v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 448. We conclude that the error was harmless in view of the fact that the......
-
Ingaglio v. Ennis
...Hilton v. Florio, 317 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); Lieberman v. Marshall, 236 So.2d 120 (Fla.1970).6 See Polland v. Visual Graphics Corp., 240 So.2d 835 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1970). ...
-
Devoe & Raynolds Co., Inc. v. KDS Paint Co., Inc., 79-1118
...Hilton v. Florio, 317 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); Lieberman v. Marshall, 236 So.2d 120 (Fla.1970).6 See Polland v. Visual Graphics Corp., 240 So.2d 835 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1970). ...