set factors in Florida

2026See Kozel, 629 So. 2d at 818 (“To assist the trial court in determining whether dismissal with prejudice is warranted, we have adopted the following set of factors . . . 1) whether the attorney’s disobedience was willful, deliberate, or contumacious, rather than an act of neglect or inexperience; 2) whether the attorney has been previously sanctioned; 3) whether the client was personally involved in the act of disobedience; 4) whether the delay prejudiced the opposing party through undue expense, loss of evidence, or in some other fashion; 5) whether the attorney offered reasonable justificati

2022Indeed, between 2016 and 2018, and because of SLF attorneys’ willful violation of court deadlines and procedural rules, many SLF clients had their cases dismissed pursuant to Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993), which established a set of factors a trial court must consider in determining whether dismissal with prejudice is warranted where an attorney has failed to adhere to filing deadlines and other procedural requirements.

2026See Kozel, 629 So. 2d at 818 (“To assist the trial court in determining whether dismissal with prejudice is warranted, we have adopted the following set of factors . . . 1) whether the attorney’s disobedience was willful, deliberate, or contumacious, rather than an act of neglect or inexperience; 2) whether the attorney has been previously sanctioned; 3) whether the client was personally involved in the act of disobedience; 4) whether the delay prejudiced the opposing party through undue expense, loss of evidence, or in some other fashion; 5) whether the attorney offered reasonable justificati

2026Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212, 215 (Fla. 1985) (“Once a verdict has liquidated the damages as of a date certain, computation of prejudgment interest is merely a mathematical computation.

2026See Kozel, 629 So. 2d at 818 (“To assist the trial court in determining whether dismissal with prejudice is warranted, we have adopted the following set of factors . . . 1) whether the attorney’s disobedience was willful, deliberate, or contumacious, rather than an act of neglect or inexperience; 2) whether the attorney has been previously sanctioned; 3) whether the client was personally involved in the act of disobedience; 4) whether the delay prejudiced the opposing party through undue expense, loss of evidence, or in some other fashion; 5) whether the attorney offered reasonable justificati

2026See Kozel, 629 So. 2d at 818 (“To assist the trial court in determining whether dismissal with prejudice is warranted, we have adopted the following set of factors . . . 1) whether the attorney’s disobedience was willful, deliberate, or contumacious, rather than an act of neglect or inexperience; 2) whether the attorney has been previously sanctioned; 3) whether the client was personally involved in the act of disobedience; 4) whether the delay prejudiced the opposing party through undue expense, loss of evidence, or in some other fashion; 5) whether the attorney offered reasonable justificati

2024See, e.g., Perez v. State, 236 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (reversing and remanding for a retroactive competency determination when the court ordered a psychiatric evaluation but never held a hearing); Pearce v. State, 250 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (reversing and remanding for a retroactive competency determination when the court failed to conduct a competency hearing); Sheheane v. State, 228 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (reversing and remanding for a retroactive competency determination when the court set a hearing date on competency, but the hearing never occurred); Walker v. Sta

2024See, e.g., Geer v. Jacobsen, 880 So. 2d 717, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

2015Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817, 818 (Fla.1993); see also Ham, 891 So.2d at 496 .