BMAB East Tower, Inc. v. Testwell Craig Laboratories & Consultants, Inc.
835 So. 2d 1211, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 220, 2003 WL 118496
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 15, 2003·No. No. 3D02-1507·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
After reviewing the record, we conclude that appellant’s amended complaint against appellees is not barred by the statute of limitations because it relates back to the date of filing of the fourth-party complaint. See McKee v. Fort Lauderdale Produce Co., 503 So.2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 513 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1987); Gatins v. Sebastian Inlet Tax Dist., 453 So.2d 871 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
BMAB East Tower, Inc. v. Testwell Craig Laboratories & Consultants, Inc., 835 So. 2d 1211, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 220, 2003 WL 118496 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).
835 So. 2d 1211 (BMAB East Tower, Inc. v. Testwell Craig Laboratories & Consultants, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Caduceus Properties, LLC v. William G. Graney, P.E.
137 So. 3d 987 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2014)
Graney v. Caduceus Properties, LLC
91 So. 3d 220 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)