Vergara v. Butter
568 So. 2d 976, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7671, 1990 WL 149810
Opinion
Raul Vergara, plaintiff below, appeals a final order dismissing his second amended complaint with prejudice. After review of the briefs and record herein, we concur with the trial court that the second amended complaint did not state a cause of action, see Nickolauson v. Rhyne, 529 So.2d 365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), and that if any cause of action did exist, it would be barred by the statute of limitations. See § 95.11(4), Fla.Stat. (1989). The order under review is therefore affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Vergara v. Butter, 568 So. 2d 976, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7671, 1990 WL 149810 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).
568 So. 2d 976 (Vergara v. Butter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Nickolauson v. Rhyne
529 So. 2d 365 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)