Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

563 So. 2d 726

Pozo v. Prada

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1990-05-29

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 2006

1 state decisions

Relies on 479 So. 2d 114 - METROPOLITAN PROPERTY v. Chicago Ins. Co. · 453 So. 2d 375 - DeClaire v. Yohanan · 507 So. 2d 1197 - Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Diaz

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-05-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

COPE, Judge

¶1(specially concurring).

¶2I 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 grounds, 519 So.2d 610 (Fla.1988). See generally DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375 (Fla.1984).

/563/so2d/726 · .json · Public domain