Randle v. Randle, 274 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Randle v. Randle, 274 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CENTRAL THERAPY CENTER, INC., a/a/o ANTONIO GARCIA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Randle v. Randle, 274 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion to amend their answer and add a counterclaim, which was filed two and one-half years after their original answer and just prior to a hearing on a motion for summary judgment); Vella v. Salaues, 290 So. 3d 946 , 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for leave to amend the complaint where “following two years of contentious litigation, on the proverbial ‘eve’ of the summary judgm…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Ash RANDLE and George L. Onett, as co-executors of the Estate of Robert W. Randle
v.
Genevieve L. RANDLE
No. 72-1372.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Mar 6, 1973.
274 So. 2d 557
Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appellants., Kelly, Black, Black & Kenny, Sinclair, Louis, Sand & Seigel, Miami, for appellee.
Barkdull, Dry, Haverfield, Hen.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This interlocutory appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, denying appellants’ motion to amend their answer and add a counterclaim which was filed two and one-half years after their original answer, and just prior to a hearing on a motion for summary judgment.

Appellants contend that the court abused its direction in refusing to allow the additional pleadings.

We have considered the record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no abuse of discretion has been made to appear.

As this court and other appellate courts have held, where no such showing is made the ruling of the trial judge will not be disturbed. 2765 South Bayshore Drive Corp. v. Fred Howland, Inc., Fla.App. 1968, 212 So.2d 911; United States v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 179 So.2d 890; Corbett v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Fla.App. 1964, 166 So.2d 196.

Affirmed.