Scott v. Morris

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Scott v. Morris

619 So. 2d 1049, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6511, 1993 WL 210579

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 18, 1993·No. No. 92-2287·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s malpractice action was properly dismissed with prejudice, as it appears from the face of the complaint that [1050] the action was filed beyond the limitations period in section 95.11(4), Florida Statutes, and the record does not otherwise suggest the existence of any disputed factual issue in this regard. See Roehner v. Atlantic Coast Development Corp., 356 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

Affirmed.

ZEHMER, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s malpractice action was properly dismissed with prejudice, as it appears from the face of the complaint that [1050] the action was filed beyond the limitations period in section 95.11(4), Florida Statutes, and the record does not otherwise suggest the existence of any disputed factual issue in this regard. See Roehner v. Atlantic Coast Development Corp., 356 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

Affirmed.

ZEHMER, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Scott v. Morris, 619 So. 2d 1049, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6511, 1993 WL 210579 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

619 So. 2d 1049 (Scott v. Morris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related