LAWRENCE W. URBANEK, APPELLANT,
v.
BENNETT S. COHN, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Diaz v. Piquette, 496 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and Willage v. Law Offices of Wallace & Breslow, P.A., 415 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority that the trial court’s decision should be affirmed on the authority of Willage v. Law Offices of Wallace and Breslow, P.A., 415 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). That case stands for the proposition that expert testimony may be necessary in a legal malpractice action to establish an appropriate standard of care and the violation thereof by the defendant’s attorney. I agree that, under the facts of this case, Willage, controls. I would not rely on Diaz v. Piquette.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carlson v. Carlson, 549 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…accrued during their long-term marriage and vested before their separation. It was error to make no evidentiary findings on the value of the pension plans, and to make no finding as to the proper date for determining valuations. Bushore v. Bushore, 531 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); White v. White, 527 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Eligio Barrios & Goldstone Co., N.V. v. Duran, 496 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Willage v. The LAW Offs. OF Wallace & Breslow, P.A., 415 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Bismark Diaz & Bis D. Corp. v. Piquette, 496 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)