Rivers v. Florida Department of Corrections

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rivers v. Florida Department of Corrections

151 So. 3d 560, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20237, 2014 WL 6997149

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-5918

StatusPublished

This text of 151 So. 3d 560 (Rivers v. Florida Department of Corrections) 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

Rivers v. Florida Department of Corrections, 151 So. 3d 560, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20237, 2014 WL 6997149 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final order dismissing appellant’s tort complaint against appellee and two of its employees. We affirm the dismissal of the complaint against appellee’s employees because they were immune from suit under section 768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes. However, appellee concedes that we must reverse the dismissal of the complaint against ap-pellee because the trial court improperly considered matters outside the four corners of the complaint regarding whether appellant complied with the presuit notice requirements of section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes. See Hamide v. State, Dep’t of Carr., 548 So.2d 877, 879-80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for further proceedings.

LEWIS, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final order dismissing appellant’s tort complaint against appellee and two of its employees. We affirm the dismissal of the complaint against appellee’s employees because they were immune from suit under section 768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes. However, appellee concedes that we must reverse the dismissal of the complaint against ap-pellee because the trial court improperly considered matters outside the four corners of the complaint regarding whether appellant complied with the presuit notice requirements of section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes. See Hamide v. State, Dep’t of Carr., 548 So.2d 877, 879-80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for further proceedings.

LEWIS, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 So. 3d 560, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20237, 2014 WL 6997149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivers-v-florida-department-of-corrections-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack