Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

370 So. 2d 38

Zeccola v. Ezzo

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1979-04-10

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1987

2 state decisions

Relies on Quiroga v. State · Green v. Bartel · Rosen v. Sparber

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1979-04-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The defendant conclusively established, without genuine issue of material fact, that the plaintiff was on actual notice of the basis of his claim for legal malpractice more than two years before the present action was filed. The summary judgment entered below for the defendant because of the bar of the statute of limitations, Section 95.-ll(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1975), is therefore affirmed. See Robinson v. Sparer, 365 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Steiner v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 364 So.2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); compare Green v. Bartel, 365 So.2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Rosen v. Sparber, 369 So.2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

¶2Affirmed.

/370/so2d/38 · .json · Public domain