Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Industries, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided November 5, 2009No. SC08-428Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPerry, J.

I agree with the present majority opinion to the extent it holds that the portion of TSE’s malpractice claim involving TSE’s attorney fees and expenses is barred, but I disagree to the extent it holds that the portion involving Frank-lynn’s fees and expenses is not barred. I would remand for reinstatement of the trial court’s order of summary judgment barring TSE’s malpractice claim in its entirety.

A. The Malpractice Claim

The trial court entered judgment for Franklynn in the patent case on October 24, 2001. TSE filed timely motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. City of Miami v. BrooksSupreme Court of Florida · 1954
  2. Silvestrone v. EdellSupreme Court of Florida · 1998
  3. Hearndon v. GrahamSupreme Court of Florida · 2000
  4. McGurn v. ScottSupreme Court of Florida · 1992
  5. Law Office of Stern v. Security Nat. Corp.Supreme Court of Florida · 2007

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API