Sallano v. Miami-Dade County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sallano v. Miami-Dade County

816 So. 2d 208, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6164, 2002 WL 882059

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 8, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-1675

StatusPublished

This text of 816 So. 2d 208 (Sallano v. Miami-Dade County) 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

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

Pincite

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]*209Cir.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

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]*209Cir.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.”)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

816 So. 2d 208, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6164, 2002 WL 882059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sallano-v-miami-dade-county-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack