Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Pozo v. Prada

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 29, 1990No. 89-2811Published

1ConcurrenceCope, Judge

(specially concurring).

I join the opinion but add that the scope of the “prospective application” clause of Rule 1.540(b)(5), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, is unsettled as applied to a judgment for money damages, apart from the unique circumstances involved in Weitzman v. F.I.F. Consultants, Inc., 468 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 479 So.2d 117 (Fla.1985). See State ex rel. Metropolitan Dade County v. American Bankers Ins. Co., 558 So.2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (on rehearing); see also Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Diaz, 507 So.2d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), approved on other…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. DeClaire v. YohananSupreme Court of Florida · 1984
  2. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. DiazDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
  3. Weitzman v. FIF Consultants, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985
  4. Diaz v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.Supreme Court of Florida · 1988
  5. State ex rel. Metropolitan Dade County v. American Bankers Insurance Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API