Calder v. Uwanawich
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Per curiam
Having examined the record before us we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting a summary judgment premised upon a determination that the appellant’s action was barred by the applicable statute of limitation, § 95.11(3)(j), Fla.Stat. (1979). See Steiner v. Ciba Geigy Corp., 364 So.2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied mem., 373 So.2d 461 (Fla.1979); Codding v. Phillips, 296 So.2d 554 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied mem., 304 So.2d 125 (Fla.1974); Matthews v. Matthews, 222 So.2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); § 95.031, Fla.Stat. (1979).1
Affirmed.. In response to the dissent we note only…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Steiner v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1978
- Matthews v. MatthewsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1969
- Codding v. PhillipsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
3Cited by2 opinions
- Armbrister v. Roland International Corp.District Court, M.D. Florida · 1987
- Korman v. IglesiasDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1993