Carter v. Marshall

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carter v. Marshall

802 So. 2d 459, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17853, 2001 WL 1614210

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 2001

DocketNo. 2D01-1427

StatusPublished

This text of 802 So. 2d 459 (Carter v. Marshall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carter v. Marshall, 802 So. 2d 459, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17853, 2001 WL 1614210 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Clyde Carter, concedes that, generally, a cause of action against a professional person does not accrue until a related underlying lawsuit is concluded. The appellees, Ernest S. Marshall and Ernest S. Marshall, P.A., acknowledge that this principle of law controls in the instant proceeding and that Mr. Carter’s lawsuit against them will not accrue until such time as a final result is reached with respect to Mr. Carter’s cause of action in case no. CA-92-4559 in Manatee County, Florida. See Silvestrone v. Edell, 721 So.2d 1173 (Fla.1998).

We therefore affirm the summary judgment entered on behalf of Ernest S. Marshall and Ernest S. Marshall, P.A., against Mr. Carter without prejudice to Mr. Carter’s refiling his lawsuit upon conclusion of the underlying lawsuit.

Affirmed.

WHATLEY, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and GREEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Clyde Carter, concedes that, generally, a cause of action against a professional person does not accrue until a related underlying lawsuit is concluded. The appellees, Ernest S. Marshall and Ernest S. Marshall, P.A., acknowledge that this principle of law controls in the instant proceeding and that Mr. Carter’s lawsuit against them will not accrue until such time as a final result is reached with respect to Mr. Carter’s cause of action in case no. CA-92-4559 in Manatee County, Florida. See Silvestrone v. Edell, 721 So.2d 1173 (Fla.1998).

We therefore affirm the summary judgment entered on behalf of Ernest S. Marshall and Ernest S. Marshall, P.A., against Mr. Carter without prejudice to Mr. Carter’s refiling his lawsuit upon conclusion of the underlying lawsuit.

Affirmed.

WHATLEY, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and GREEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

802 So. 2d 459, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17853, 2001 WL 1614210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-marshall-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack