CAROL ANN KAYE, APPELLANT,
v.
BURGHARD STEINER AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Per Curiam Affirmance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See and compare Gatins v. Sebastian Inlet Tax District, 453 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Higginbotham v. Fearer Leasing, Inc., 32 Mich.App. 664, 189 N.W. 2d 125 (1971).
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge,
concurring.
The introductory signal to the cases cited in this per curiam affirmance should not be construed as our approval of Gatins v. Sebastian Inlet Tax District, 453 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The rule adopted there, namely, that “the plaintiff is permitted to amend outside the limitation period to formally make the third party defendant a party defendant • • • where ... the plaintiffs claim concerns the same issues as are raised in the third party complaint,” applies only when, unlike here, the “third party complaint is filed within the applicable limitation period and the third party defendant is made aware that it may be held liable for the plaintiffs damages,” Gatins v. Sebastian Inlet Tax District, 453 So. 2d at 875. Therefore, we would be required to affirm the case under review, whether we follow Gatins or the rule of the majority of jurisdictions, that no such amendment to the primary complaint is permitted even if the third-party complaint is timely filed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Graney v. Caduceus Props., LLC, 91 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…the third party complaint. Id. at 875 (citations and footnote omitted). Although cited by two of the other Districts, no Florida court has expressly adopted the reasoning in Gatins or applied the court’s holding to similar facts. Kaye v. Steiner, 460 So. 2d 568, 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (Pearson, J. concurring) (“The introductory signal to the cases cited in this per curiam affirmance should not be construed as our approval of Gatins ....”); BMAB E. Tower, Inc. v. Testwell Craig Lab. & Consultants, Inc., 835…
-
C.T. v. State, 460 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…la. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1977); (2) as we have held in another opinion filed this day and involving the same issue, there is, in our view, no requirement that a Miranda waiver from a juvenile be in writing, T.J. v. State, 460 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see State v. Cartwright, 448 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); In re H.D., 443 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see also Jordan v. State, 334 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1976); contra S.L.W. v. State, 445 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); and (3…
-
State v. In the Interest of D.L.B., 467 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…, (Fla.S.Ct. case no. 65,021); In the Interest of H.D., (Fla.S.Ct. case no. 64,796). We also note that the Third District, citing Cartwright and H.D., recently held that a juvenile’s waiver of counsel is not required to be in writing. T.J. v. State, 460 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); C.T. v. State, 460 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Were it not for this court’s earlier decisions in S.L. W. and M.L.H., this panel would likely reverse the suppression orders in the instant ease for the same reasons which have…
Authorities Cited
- Gatins v. Sebastian Inlet TAX Dist., 453 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)