J.T.A., Inc. v. Harpster

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J.T.A., Inc. v. Harpster

529 So. 2d 731, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1482, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2571

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 23, 1988·No. Nos. 86-1825, 87-1302·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the appellant’s motion for rehearing, we vacate our per curiam panel decision filed October 20, 1987, and substitute the following opinion therefor.

The issues in this case are controlled by the en banc opinion in Thomas v. Jones, 524 So.2d 693 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment, including the award of attorney’s fees to the appellees, and remand without prejudice to the institution of individual actions.

REVERSED; REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, J., and UPCHURCH, J., Retired, concur. SHARP, C.J., dissents with opinion.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the appellant’s motion for rehearing, we vacate our per curiam panel decision filed October 20, 1987, and substitute the following opinion therefor.

The issues in this case are controlled by the en banc opinion in Thomas v. Jones, 524 So.2d 693 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment, including the award of attorney’s fees to the appellees, and remand without prejudice to the institution of individual actions.

REVERSED; REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, J., and UPCHURCH, J., Retired, concur. SHARP, C.J., dissents with opinion.

J.T.A., Inc. v. Harpster, 529 So. 2d 731, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1482, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2571 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

529 So. 2d 731 (J.T.A., Inc. v. Harpster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related