Strano v. Shearson American Express, Inc.

499 So. 2d 71, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 137, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11181
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 30, 1986
DocketNo. 86-2377
StatusPublished

This text of 499 So. 2d 71 (Strano v. Shearson American Express, Inc.) 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
Strano v. Shearson American Express, Inc., 499 So. 2d 71, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 137, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11181 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Neither the fact that the brokerage firm participated in, rather than initiated, the extensive discovery for more than one year after the Florida Supreme Court decided Oppenheimer & Co. v. Young, 475 So.2d 221 (Fla.1985), nor the fact that one count of the plaintiffs’ complaint was not subject to arbitration and would have thus supported some limited pretrial discovery, serves to distinguish this case from Puchner v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., 498 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and the belated order compelling arbitration is, accordingly,

Reversed.

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

Related

Puchner v. Drexel Burnham Lambert
498 So. 2d 550 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Young
475 So. 2d 221 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
499 So. 2d 71, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 137, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strano-v-shearson-american-express-inc-fladistctapp-1986.