Arrow v. Faye

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Arrow v. Faye

422 So. 2d 932, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21574

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 2, 1982·No. No. 81-2560·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It indisputably appears that this action for legal malpractice (arising from the ap-pellee’s alleged failure to prosecute appellants’ action for personal injuries within the appropriate statute of limitations) was filed well within two years of the dismissal of the limitations-barred personal injury action and this court’s affirmance of that dismissal. Therefore, to the extent that appellants’ amended complaint was dismissed below as being without the two-year limitations period fixed for such an action,' see § 95.11(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1979), such dismissal was error. There being no other discernible basis for the order of dismissal, the order is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

It indisputably appears that this action for legal malpractice (arising from the ap-pellee’s alleged failure to prosecute appellants’ action for personal injuries within the appropriate statute of limitations) was filed well within two years of the dismissal of the limitations-barred personal injury action and this court’s affirmance of that dismissal. Therefore, to the extent that appellants’ amended complaint was dismissed below as being without the two-year limitations period fixed for such an action,' see § 95.11(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1979), such dismissal was error. There being no other discernible basis for the order of dismissal, the order is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Arrow v. Faye, 422 So. 2d 932, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21574 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

422 So. 2d 932 (Arrow v. Faye) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related