16 Cited authorities

Abbott Laboratories v. Gen. Ele. Cap
765 So. 2d 737 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 107 times
Holding that since at least nominal damages are sustained at the time of a breach of contract, all of the elements necessary to maintain a lawsuit and obtain relief in court are present at the time of the breach
Davis v. Monahan
832 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 2002) Cited 97 times
Holding that the only statutory bases for the delayed discovery rule apply to fraud, products liability, professional and medical malpractice, and intentional torts based on abuse
Eclipse Medical v. American Hydro-Surgical
262 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 1999) Cited 96 times
Finding that a tortious interference claim was barred by the economic loss rule where the claim has "nothing to do with conduct toward third parties — its 'focus' is on the parties' contractual relationship. It is exactly this sort of legal alchemy, i.e., the conversion of alleged breaches of contract into tort claims, that the economic loss rule was designed to prevent."
DK Arena, Inc. v. EB Acquisitions I, LLC
112 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 2013) Cited 46 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the Statute of Frauds, any modification to the contract was unenforceable unless memorialized in a written document signed by the parties
Allie v. Ionata
503 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1987) Cited 72 times
Holding that dismissal on limitations grounds is a "dismissal . . . on the merits" under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b) and constitutes an "adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes"
Federal Insurance Co. v. Southwest Florida Retirement Center, Inc.
707 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1998) Cited 40 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Florida Supreme Court would not write into a statute of limitations a delayed discovery rule when the legislature itself had not done so explicitly, and that the legislature could make the necessary statutory change if that were its intent
HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc. v. Hillman
906 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 29 times
Declining to expand the "misled or lulled" standard beyond "the administrative law context" because, for civil cases, "the legislature has made clear its intent to exclude all tolling exceptions not listed in" Section 95.051
Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc.
190 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1966) Cited 71 times
Finding promissory estoppel was not an exception to statute of frauds
D.H. v. Adept Cmty. Servs., Inc.
217 So. 3d 1072 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017) Cited 3 times
Case No. 2D15–304 Case No. 2D15–677 04-05-2017 D.H. and L.H., minor children, BY AND THROUGH their next friend s and permanent guardians, R.H. and S.H., Appellants, v. ADEPT COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC.; and B.E.A.R.R., Inc., Appellees. B.E.A.R.R., Inc., Appellant, v. D.H. and L.H., minor children, by and through their next friends and permanent guardians, R.H. and S.H., Appellees. Howard M. Talenfeld and Nicole R. Coniglio of Talenfeld Law, Fort Lauderdale; and Richard A. Filson of Filson & Penge, P
Blue Paper, Inc. v. Provost
914 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 10 times
Holding where a promoter contracts in the name of a corporation to be formed later, but does not intend to be personally liable on the contract, and the other party knows this, the promoter is not personally liable
Section 95.031 - Computation of time
Fla. Stat. § 95.031 Cited 628 times 9 Legal Analyses
Delaying the start of the four-year limitations period for actions "founded upon fraud" until "the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence"
Section 725.01 - Promise to pay another's debt, etc
Fla. Stat. § 725.01 Cited 403 times 5 Legal Analyses
Listing those contracts that do require a writing
Section 95.051 - When limitations tolled
Fla. Stat. § 95.051 Cited 178 times
Holding that limitations period is tolled when defendant is absent from Florida

Gatti v. Goodman et al

16 Cited authorities

Holding that since at least nominal damages are sustained at the time of a breach of contract, all of the elements necessary to maintain a lawsuit and obtain relief in court are present at the time of the breach

Holding that the only statutory bases for the delayed discovery rule apply to fraud, products liability, professional and medical malpractice, and intentional torts based on abuse

Holding that under the Statute of Frauds, any modification to the contract was unenforceable unless memorialized in a written document signed by the parties

Holding that dismissal on limitations grounds is a "dismissal . . . on the merits" under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b) and constitutes an "adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes"

Holding that the Florida Supreme Court would not write into a statute of limitations a delayed discovery rule when the legislature itself had not done so explicitly, and that the legislature could make the necessary statutory change if that were its intent

Declining to expand the "misled or lulled" standard beyond "the administrative law context" because, for civil cases, "the legislature has made clear its intent to exclude all tolling exceptions not listed in" Section 95.051

Finding promissory estoppel was not an exception to statute of frauds

Holding where a promoter contracts in the name of a corporation to be formed later, but does not intend to be personally liable on the contract, and the other party knows this, the promoter is not personally liable

Delaying the start of the four-year limitations period for actions "founded upon fraud" until "the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence"

Listing those contracts that do require a writing

Holding that limitations period is tolled when defendant is absent from Florida