Villar v. Olazabal

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Villar v. Olazabal

675 So. 2d 710, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6771, 1996 WL 347132

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 26, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1458

StatusPublished

This text of 675 So. 2d 710 (Villar v. Olazabal) 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

Villar v. Olazabal, 675 So. 2d 710, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6771, 1996 WL 347132 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint because as a matter of law the impact rule bars these causes of action and the facts of this case do not fall within the narrow exceptions to the impact rule. See Zell v. Meek, 665 So.2d 1048 (Fla.1995); Champion v. Gray, 478 So.2d 17 (Fla.1985); Sguros v. Biscayne Recreation Dev. Co., 528 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So.2d 880 (Fla.1988).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint because as a matter of law the impact rule bars these causes of action and the facts of this case do not fall within the narrow exceptions to the impact rule. See Zell v. Meek, 665 So.2d 1048 (Fla.1995); Champion v. Gray, 478 So.2d 17 (Fla.1985); Sguros v. Biscayne Recreation Dev. Co., 528 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So.2d 880 (Fla.1988).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

675 So. 2d 710, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6771, 1996 WL 347132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villar-v-olazabal-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack