Legal Opinion

Zeccola v. Ezzo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 10, 1979No. 78-957PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

The defendant conclusively established, without genuine issue of material fact, that the plaintiff was on actual notice of the basis of his claim for legal malpractice more than two years before the present action was filed. The summary judgment entered below for the defendant because of the bar of the statute of limitations, Section 95.-ll(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1975), is therefore affirmed. See Robinson v. Sparer, 365 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Steiner v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 364 So.2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); compare Green v. Bartel, 365 So.2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Rosen v. Sparber, 369…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Steiner v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1978
  2. Green v. BartelDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1978
  3. Rosen v. SparberDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1978
  4. Robinson v. SparerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1978

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Pomerance v. GraggDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API