CARL B. SMITH & SONS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ELISABETH HENDERSON TINKLER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the final amended complaint related back to the original complaint for statute of limitations purposes, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.
Appellant appealed a final judgment entered against it. The appeal concerned whether the claim in the final amended complaint related back to the orig…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Relation Back Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
Appellant appeals a final judgment entered against it and in favor of appellee.
The first point on appeal involves the question of relation back of the claim contained in the final amended complaint to the “cause of action” stated in the original complaint. The original complaint was filed within the time allowed under the Statute of Limitations. Several amended complaints were subsequently filed which also were within the Statute of Limitations. The final amended complaint which was the claim upon which the case went to trial was filed after the Statute of Limitations had run.
We concur with the trial court that under Keel v. Brown, Fla.App.2d 1964, 162 So. 2d 321; Brown v. Wood, Fla.App.2d 1967, 202 So. 2d 125; and Handley v. Anclote Manor Foundation, Fla.App.2d 1971, 253 So. 2d 501, the final amended complaint in the instant cause relates back to the original complaint and the trial court was eminently correct in so ruling.
The remaining two points on appeal attack the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict. We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and have determined, as the trial judge did, that there is competent, substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict.
Affirmed.
McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Keel v. Brown, 162 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Brown v. Wood, 202 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Handley v. Anclote Manor Found., 253 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)