Lane v. Eckert

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lane v. Eckert

652 So. 2d 1257, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3555, 1995 WL 150422

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 7, 1995·No. No. 93-00677·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

QUINCE, Judge.

Because the appellant failed to comply with the requirements of section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (1991), the trial court properly dismissed his complaint. Since, however, the statute of limitations had not yet run at the time of dismissal, the appellant shall have the opportunity to file an amended complaint after compliance with the statute. Wright v. Polk County Public Health Unit, 601 So.2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Hamide v. State, Dep’t of Corrections, 548 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Wemett v. Duval County, 485 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We therefore affirm the dismissal of the complaint and remand for further proceedings.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

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

QUINCE, Judge.

Because the appellant failed to comply with the requirements of section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (1991), the trial court properly dismissed his complaint. Since, however, the statute of limitations had not yet run at the time of dismissal, the appellant shall have the opportunity to file an amended complaint after compliance with the statute. Wright v. Polk County Public Health Unit, 601 So.2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Hamide v. State, Dep’t of Corrections, 548 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Wemett v. Duval County, 485 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We therefore affirm the dismissal of the complaint and remand for further proceedings.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

Lane v. Eckert, 652 So. 2d 1257, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3555, 1995 WL 150422 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

652 So. 2d 1257 (Lane v. Eckert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related