Legal Opinion

Lane v. Eckert

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 7, 1995No. 93-00677PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

QUINCE, Judge.

Because the appellant failed to comply with the requirements of section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (1991), the trial court properly dismissed his complaint. Since, however, the statute of limitations had not yet run at the time of dismissal, the appellant shall have the opportunity to file an amended complaint after compliance with the statute. Wright v. Polk County Public Health Unit, 601 So.2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Hamide v. State, Dep’t of Corrections, 548 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Wemett v. Duval County, 485 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We therefore affirm the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hamide v. STATE, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONSDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
  2. Wemett v. Duval CountyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986
  3. Wright v. POLK CTY. PUBLIC HEALTH UNITDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mason v. Highlands County Board of County CommissionersDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001
  2. PATTERSON AND WALTER v. CLARKEDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API