J.E.W., APPELLANT,
v.
ESTATE OF JOHN DOE, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for rehearing is DENIED. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. West, 378 So. 2d 1220 (Fla.1979) is distinguishable from this case. In West the state was concerned with support of the minor child during the life of the father. The state’s interest in securing support payments for the minor child is greater than avoiding stale claims. The instant case is one for declaratory judgment of paternity with no benefits sought or other relief claimed. It is a pure paternity action and barred by section 95.-ll(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1981). The appellant cannot seek support from the estate of his deceased father. Flagler v. Flagler, 94 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1957). Flagler is a clear statement of the law and this court is obligated to follow that precedent.
SMITH, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. OF Charles W. Smith v. Scruggs, 685 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1996)…iod for filing claims after they had accrued. The court pointed out that the limitations period prescribed by section 95.11(3)(b) already had run by the time Gar-ris filed suit. The court employed a similar analysis in J.E.W. v. Estate of John Doe, 481 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1986), in which the court’s entire opinion stated: The motion for rehearing is DENIED. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. West, 378 So. 2d 1220 (Fla.1979) is distinguishab…
-
Collins v. F & J Fixtures & Crawford & Co., 498 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…However, given the factors supporting the deputy’s decision, as well as the strong statutory policy in favor of periodic benefits, see Kissimmee Construction Co. v. Riley, 450 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Oliver B. Cannon & Sons, Inc. v. Crosby, 481 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); J.F. Hoff Electric Co. v. Powell, 485 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), we do not find that the error was sufficient to require reversal. Affirmed. BOOTH, C.J., and WENTWORTH, J., concur.…
-
Boynton Landscape Co. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dickinson, 487 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…yer’s or carrier’s liability for future medical expenses. In no case shall a lump sum settlement be allowed until 6 months after the date of maximum medical improvement has been reached. (emphasis supplied) . But cf. Cannon & Sons, Inc. v. Crosby, 481 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), wherein this court reversed the lump sum advance, finding it not to be in claimant’s best interests since the financial plan did not take into account the social security offset. In Cannon, however, this court was not directly f…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Flagler v. Flagler, 94 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1957)
- State v. West, 378 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 1979)