Lisenbee v. Whitman

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lisenbee v. Whitman. Read the opinion of the Court — 252 So. 3d 1280
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 13, 2018·No. 5D18-396·Published

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CORY LISENBEE,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D18-396

DEAN WHITMAN,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 17, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, John Galluzzo, Judge.

Cory Lisenbee, Lake Mary, pro se.

Joseph S. Justice, of Ringer, Henry, Buckley & Seacord, PA, Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court properly dismissed Appellant’s amended complaint with prejudice.

The applicable statute of limitations had run, and Appellant admittedly failed to comply or

plead compliance with the mandatory presuit investigation and notice requirements set

forth in chapter 766, Florida Statutes.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

Lisenbee v. Whitman, (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Lisenbee v. Whitman (Lisenbee v. Whitman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.