Sallano v. Miami-Dade County

816 So. 2d 208, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6164, 2002 WL 882059
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 8, 2002·No. No. 3D01-1675·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 57.085(2), Fla. Stat. (2000); Urrutia v. Harrisburg County Police Dep’t, 91 F.3d 451, 458 n. 13 (3d [209] Cir.1996) (under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, merely “submitting an in forma pauperis complaint to the clerk does not result in commencement of the litigation and satisfaction of the statute of limitations.”); Reed v. Mims, 711 So.2d 169, 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“It is evident that [§ 57.085] is patterned after similarly worded 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”)

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

Sallano v. Miami-Dade County, 816 So. 2d 208, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6164, 2002 WL 882059 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

816 So. 2d 208 (Sallano v. Miami-Dade County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Reed v. Mims
711 So. 2d 169 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)