From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Della-Donna v. Gore Newspapers Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Mar 4, 1985
463 So. 2d 414 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Summary

holding that section does not apply to non-media defendants

Summary of this case from Zelinka v. Americare Healthscan

Opinion

No. 83-2264.

January 30, 1985. Rehearing and/or Clarification Denied March 4, 1985.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Broward County, J. Cail Lee, J.

Frates, Bienstock Sheebe, Miami; Jonathan W. Lubell and Mary K. O'Melveny of Cohn, Glickstein, Lurie, Ostrin, Lubell Lubell, New York City, and Robert J. O'Toole, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Karen Coolman Amlong of Holmes Amlong, Fort Lauderdale; and Scott DiSalvo of Fazio, Dawson DiSalvo, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee, Forman.


The summary judgment entered in this cause is reversed. Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1983), does not apply to non-media defendants. Demolfetta v. American Sightseeing Tours, 450 So.2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Davies v. Bossert, 449 So.2d 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Bridges v. Williamson, 449 So.2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Accordingly, this cause is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY, HURLEY and BARKETT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Della-Donna v. Gore Newspapers Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Mar 4, 1985
463 So. 2d 414 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

holding that section does not apply to non-media defendants

Summary of this case from Zelinka v. Americare Healthscan
Case details for

Della-Donna v. Gore Newspapers Co.

Case Details

Full title:ALPHONSE DELLA-DONNA, APPELLANT, v. GORE NEWSPAPERS COMPANY, A DELAWARE…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Mar 4, 1985

Citations

463 So. 2d 414 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

Tobkin v. Jarboe

Plaintiff does not deny that he failed to provide the pre-suit notice required by Florida law. Fla. Stat. ch.…

Zelinka v. Americare Healthscan

Every Florida court that has considered the question has concluded that the presuit notice requirement…