Harmon v. Weiselberg

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harmon v. Weiselberg

615 So. 2d 279, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3807, 1993 WL 80612

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 23, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1547

StatusPublished

This text of 615 So. 2d 279 (Harmon v. Weiselberg) 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

Harmon v. Weiselberg, 615 So. 2d 279, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3807, 1993 WL 80612 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Counsel having conceded during oral argument that the dismissal as to Capital Bank should have been “without” prejudice, instead of “with” prejudice, said order of dismissal under review be and the same is hereby so amended to read “without” prejudice. The trial court shall fix a time within which the plaintiff should file an amended complaint.

Affirmed as amended, with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Counsel having conceded during oral argument that the dismissal as to Capital Bank should have been “without” prejudice, instead of “with” prejudice, said order of dismissal under review be and the same is hereby so amended to read “without” prejudice. The trial court shall fix a time within which the plaintiff should file an amended complaint.

Affirmed as amended, with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 So. 2d 279, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 3807, 1993 WL 80612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harmon-v-weiselberg-fladistctapp-1993.