Cohen v. Trask

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cohen v. Trask

471 So. 2d 1294, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1327, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14850

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 28, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2058

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 471 So. 2d 1294 (Cohen v. Trask) 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

Cohen v. Trask, 471 So. 2d 1294, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1327, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14850 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The summary judgment entered against the plaintiff on the ground that his defamation action against the defendant was barred by New York’s one-year limitation period for such action is reversed upon a holding that, although the complaint is imprecise, it can generously be viewed as saying that the defamatory material first published in New York was later republished in Florida, thus meaning that Florida’s four-year statute of limitations would apply to this republication, and an action based on the republication would not be limitations-barred. Upon remand, the plaintiff should be permitted to amend his complaint to specifically set forth when the publication in Florida occurred and to whom and under what circumstances it was made. Our decision is without prejudice to the defendant’s right to move again for summary judgment on any appropriate grounds.

Reversed and remanded.

HENDRY and DANIEL S. PEARSON, ' JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The summary judgment entered against the plaintiff on the ground that his defamation action against the defendant was barred by New York’s one-year limitation period for such action is reversed upon a holding that, although the complaint is imprecise, it can generously be viewed as saying that the defamatory material first published in New York was later republished in Florida, thus meaning that Florida’s four-year statute of limitations would apply to this republication, and an action based on the republication would not be limitations-barred. Upon remand, the plaintiff should be permitted to amend his complaint to specifically set forth when the publication in Florida occurred and to whom and under what circumstances it was made. Our decision is without prejudice to the defendant’s right to move again for summary judgment on any appropriate grounds.

Reversed and remanded.

HENDRY and DANIEL S. PEARSON, ' JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 So. 2d 1294, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1327, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-trask-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack