Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

419 So. 2d 418

Herskowitz v. Nesbitt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 21, 1982

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1982-09-21

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1985

Relies on Stump v. Sparkman · 322 So. 2d 602 - Rivello v. Cooper City · 134 Cal. App. 166 - Ceinar v. Johnston

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-09-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We agree with the trial court that the alleged fact that the appellees presided over the probate of an estate beyond the twelve month period provided by Sec. 733.-901, Fla.Stat. (1979) and Fla. R.P. & G.P. 5.400 did not render them without subject matter jurisdiction over the cause. Hence, the pertinent exception to the rule of absolute immunity from damage claims for judicial rulings made in an official capacity does not apply. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Rivello v. Cooper City, 322 So.2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Ceinar v. Johnston, 134 Cal.App. 166, 25 P.2d 28 (1933). The dismissal with prejudice of the amended complaint is therefore

¶2Affirmed.

/419/so2d/418 · .json · Public domain