WILLIAM R. TEDDER, JOINED BY HIS WIFE, DEBORAH TEDDER, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF FORT PIERCE ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statute Of Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
[*507] PER CURIAM.
Upon review and consideration of the briefs and record on appeal we are of the opinion that plaintiffs’ cause of action against the individual employees of the City of Fort Pierce was not barred by the one year limitation applicable to cities and villages as prescribed in sec. 95.24, F.S. Insofar as those defendants other than the City of Fort Pierce are concerned the four year limitation period set forth in sec. 95.-11(4), F.S., is applicable. Accordingly, the order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint and the final judgment rendered thereon are affirmed insofar as it relates to the City of Fort Pierce, defendant, and reversed insofar as it relates to the individual defendant-employees of the City of Fort Pierce.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part.
WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS and MA-GER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Tedder, 388 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…. Plaintiff originally sued the City of Fort Pierce and several employees. The case was dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations and this court reversed the dismissal as to the individual defendant employees. Tedder v. City of Fort Pierce, 333 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 428 (Fla.1977). On remand, the matter proceeded to trial against the City employees on the theory of personal liability- At the conclusion of the trial, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed several of the in…