Hugh D. Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op Of Florida, 864 F.2d 101 (1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Hugh D. Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op Of Florida, 864 F.2d 101 (1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 41× by 41 distinct cases, 2021–2026 · 3 courts · …the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket. ✓
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2019–2026 · 2 courts · …the sanctions imposed can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice. ✓
1,139 citation events (1,117 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Joseph Alexander v. Dawn Hill-Kearse and Sergio Jimenez (almd, 2026-03-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Joseph Alexander v. Dawn Hill-Kearse and Sergio Jimenez (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
M.D. Ala. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Sherri Bannister v. Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
M.D. Fla. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the sanctions imposed can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Michelle Wynn Johnson v. Frank Bisignano
S.D. Ga. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Cornelius Allen Young v. Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, et al. (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
M.D. Ala. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Fox v. Hanson
S.D. Ga. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Roberson v. Burnham II
S.D. Ga. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Kerch v. Glenn
S.D. Ga. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Williamson v. Chatham County Detention Center
S.D. Ga. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Alexander v. Pineiro
S.D. Ga. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Maxwell v. Spectrum Health Systems
S.D. Ga. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Sanders v. Titlemax Corporation
S.D. Ga. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Thomas v. Freesmann
S.D. Ga. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Chapman v. Chicago Regional Office of FHEO
S.D. Ga. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Villafana v. Marshall (INMATE 3) (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
M.D. Ala. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Campbell v. Houston County Jail (INMATE 3) (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
M.D. Ala. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Lawton v. Houston County Jail (INMATE 3) (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
M.D. Ala. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Mcleod v. Houston County Jail (INMATE 3) (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
M.D. Ala. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Long v. Beasley
S.D. Ga. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Wiles v. Houston County Jail (INMATE 3) (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
M.D. Ala. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Marsh v. Houston County Jail (INMATE 3) (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
M.D. Ala. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Davis v. Howell (INMATE 3) (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
M.D. Ala. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Brown v. Pfizer Pharmaceutical (INMATE 3) (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
M.D. Ala. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Foster v. Cole (INMATE 3) (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
M.D. Ala. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Wright v. Clark
S.D. Ga. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Golden v. Liberty County Public Defender's Office
S.D. Ga. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Middleton v. Chatham County
S.D. Ga. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Riley v. Abbett (INMATE 3)
M.D. Ala. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Sweat v. Davis (INMATE 3) (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
M.D. Ala. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Nicholson v. Colbert
S.D. Ga. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) McCrary v. Smith (INMATE 3)
M.D. Ala. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Lowe v. Officer O
S.D. Ga. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Nails v. Hilliard
S.D. Ga. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Alonsa v. Wilcher
S.D. Ga. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Holloway v. Saul
S.D. Ga. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Scott v. Superior Court of Bulloch County
S.D. Ga. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Lee v. King
S.D. Ga. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Oasis International Group, Limited
M.D. Fla. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Bolton v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (INMATE 2)
M.D. Ala. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Dennis v. Jackson (INMATE 2)
M.D. Ala. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Nance v. Golson (INMATE 2)
M.D. Ala. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Widner v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE)
S.D. Ga. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Edwards v. Alston
S.D. Ga. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Richburg v. Howard (INMATE 2)
M.D. Ala. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the sanctions imposed can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Morrison v. Hughes (INMATE 3)
M.D. Ala. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the sanctions imposed can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Balcom v. Valenza (INMATE 2)
M.D. Ala. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the sanctions imposed can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Carlton L. Avery doing business as Avery Mediation Services v. The Buller Group, LLC, et al.
M.D. Ala. · 2026 · confidence medium
See Id. at 629- 30.; Mingo[, 864 F.2d at 102].
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael A. Devita v. Town of Webb, Alabama, et al.
M.D. Ala. · 2025 · confidence medium
“The sanctions imposed [upon dilatory litigants] can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice.” Id. at 102.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Shareen Grice v. Tom Reed, et al.
M.D. Ala. · 2025 · confidence medium
No. 10, 13.) sanctions lesser than dismissal would not suffice.7 See Mingo, 864 F.2d at 102; Goforth, 766 F.2d at 1535 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pugh v. Alabama Department of Mental Health (MAG+)
M.D. Ala. · 2025 · confidence medium
“The sanctions imposed [upon dilatory litigants] can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice.” Id. at 102.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pugh v. Barbour County, Alabama(MAG+) (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
M.D. Ala. · 2025 · confidence medium
“The sanctions imposed [upon dilatory litigants] can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice.” Id. at 102.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hugh D. Mingo, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Cross-Appellee
v.
Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Florida A/K/A \Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida
Jan 23, 1989.
864 F.2d 101
2 passages pin-cited by 44 cases
Pinpoint authority: #1,074 of 633,719
Citer courts: S.D. Georgia (22) · M.D. Alabama (19) · M.D. Florida (1)

864 F.2d 101

Hugh D. MINGO, Individually and on Behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
v.
SUGAR CANE GROWERS CO-OP OF FLORIDA a/k/a "Sugar Cane
Growers Cooperative of Florida,"
Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.

No. 87-5710
Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 23, 1989.

Ann Margaret Pointer, Fisher & Phillips, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee, cross-appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before VANCE, KRAVITCH and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~101]1

Plaintiff appeals the district court's order dismissing his action, with prejudice, for want of prosecution. We vacate the order and remand the cause to the trial court.

[*101]2

The district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). Incident to this power, the judge may impose formal sanctions upon dilatory litigants. The sanctions imposed can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice.

3

Our cases announce the rule, however, that dismissal is warranted only upon a "clear record of delay or willful contempt and a finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice." Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir.1985) (emphasis supplied); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir.1983); Hildebrand v. Honeywell, Inc., 622 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir.1980).[1] Although we occasionally have found implicit in an order the conclusion that "lesser sanctions would not suffice" (see Goforth, 766 F.2d at 1535), we have never suggested that the district court need not make that finding, which is essential before a party can be penalized for his attorney's misconduct. Hildebrand, 622 F.2d at 181. See Cohen v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 782 F.2d 923, 925 (11th Cir.1986) (trial court abused discretion by ordering dismissal without considering lesser sanctions); Carter v. United States, 780 F.2d 925, 928 (11th Cir.1986) (same; dicta ); also, Jones v. Bowen, 790 F.2d 1550, 1553 (11th Cir.1986) (cause remanded). In Goforth, any order other than dismissal would have "greatly prejudiced" the defendants. Id., 766 F.2d at 1535; compare Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d at 1461-62 (district judge found that great prejudice to defendants could only be cured by dismissal).

[*~102]4

In the instant case, the trial court did not make a finding concerning the efficacy of sanctions less severe than dismissal. The district court did mention that earlier in the litigation the cause had come close to dismissal; in fact, the court had warned plaintiff on at least two prior occasions that further delay might yield dismissal. In its order finally disposing of the action, the court concluded that dismissal was warranted because "it would be unfair to defendant to allow this unhappy litigation to drag on longer than it already has," and further, that "the circumstances of this case cry out for such a 'just, speedy, and inexpensive determination.' " We understand the district judge's frustration. Because the sanction of dismissal with prejudice is so unsparing, however, we hesitate to infer from this language that the trial court reflected upon the wide range of sanctions at its disposal and concluded that none save dismissal would spur this litigation to its just completion. We therefore VACATE the order and REMAND the cause for the district court's further consideration.[2]

1

See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (in banc). The Eleventh Circuit, sitting in banc, adopted as binding precedent all decisions rendered prior to October 1, 1981, by the former Fifth Circuit

2

Because we remand the cause, defendant's cross-appeal for fees and expenses is not ripe for our determination