Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Diecidue v. Lewis
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided February 10, 2017No. Case 2D15-1852Published
1Concurrence
CÁSANUEVA,
Concurring.
I fully concur in the majority opinion. I write to discuss a concern caused by the proposal for settlement utilized in this matter and how such a proposal for settlement can be utilized in other matters for the purpose of attaining a tactical advantage rather than for the recognized purpose of ending litigation so that scarce judicial resources may be conserved. I continue to adhere to the belief that the purpose of rule 1.442 and section 768.79 is to end litigation and not to create more. Lucas, 813 So.2d at 973.
I will first identify the proposal for settlement at issue…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Susanne L. Kuhajda v. Borden Dairy Company of Alabama, LLC.Supreme Court of Florida · 2016
- BD. OF TRUSTEES OF FL. ATL. UNIV. v. BowmanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
- ATTORNEYS'TITLE INS. FUND, INC. v. GorkaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008
- Jessla Construction Corp. v. Miami-Dade County School BoardDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010
- Michele K. Feinzig, P.A. v. Deehl & Carlson, P.A.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.