Lane v. Eckert
District Court of Appeal of Florida
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
- Hamide v. STATE, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONSDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1989
- Wemett v. Duval CountyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986
- Wright v. POLK CTY. PUBLIC HEALTH UNITDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mason v. Highlands County Board of County CommissionersDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001
- PATTERSON AND WALTER v. CLARKEDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2024