History
  • No items yet
midpage
Herskowitz v. Nesbitt
419 So. 2d 418
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1982
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

We agree with the trial court that the alleged fact that the appellees presided over the probate of an estate beyond the twelve month period provided by Sec. 733.-901, Fla.Stat. (1979) and Fla. R.P. & G.P. 5.400 did not render them without subject matter jurisdiction over the cause. Hence, the pertinent exception to the rule of absolute immunity from damage claims for judicial rulings made in an official capacity does not apply. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Rivello v. Cooper City, 322 So.2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Ceinar v. Johnston, 134 Cal.App. 166, 25 P.2d 28 (1933). The dismissal with prejudice of the amended complaint is therefore

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Herskowitz v. Nesbitt
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Sep 21, 1982
Citation: 419 So. 2d 418
Docket Number: No. 81-1971
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.