Phillips v. Lamar

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Phillips v. Lamar

481 So. 2d 68, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 51, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 5985

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 26, 1985

DocketNo. 85-451

StatusPublished

This text of 481 So. 2d 68 (Phillips v. Lamar) 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

Phillips v. Lamar, 481 So. 2d 68, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 51, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 5985 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, Judge.

We reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, Orange County Sheriff Lawson Lamar, because the record does not support the defendant’s assertion that the federal court decided plaintiffs state court claim for false arrest and false imprisonment on its merits. While it appears clear that the dismissal of plaintiffs action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was on the merits, it is not clear from the record or from the order dismissing the action in the federal court that the state claim was considered at all. Under these circumstances, it would work an injustice on the plaintiff to bar the state claim. See deCancino v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 283 So.2d 97 (Fla.1973). Thus, the summary judgment on this claim was erroneous. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

ORFINGER, Judge.

We reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, Orange County Sheriff Lawson Lamar, because the record does not support the defendant’s assertion that the federal court decided plaintiffs state court claim for false arrest and false imprisonment on its merits. While it appears clear that the dismissal of plaintiffs action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was on the merits, it is not clear from the record or from the order dismissing the action in the federal court that the state claim was considered at all. Under these circumstances, it would work an injustice on the plaintiff to bar the state claim. See deCancino v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 283 So.2d 97 (Fla.1973). Thus, the summary judgment on this claim was erroneous. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 So. 2d 68, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 51, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 5985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-lamar-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack