Herskowitz v. Nesbitt

419 So. 2d 418, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21178
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 21, 1982·No. No. 81-1971·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the trial court that the alleged fact that the appellees presided over the probate of an estate beyond the twelve month period provided by Sec. 733.-901, Fla.Stat. (1979) and Fla. R.P. & G.P. 5.400 did not render them without subject matter jurisdiction over the cause. Hence, the pertinent exception to the rule of absolute immunity from damage claims for judicial rulings made in an official capacity does not apply. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Rivello v. Cooper City, 322 So.2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Ceinar v. Johnston, 134 Cal.App. 166, 25 P.2d 28 (1933). The dismissal with prejudice of the amended complaint is therefore

Affirmed.

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

Herskowitz v. Nesbitt, 419 So. 2d 418, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21178 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

419 So. 2d 418 (Herskowitz v. Nesbitt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dykes v. Hosemann
776 F.2d 942 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)