SHERIFF OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,

v.

SHERRY BOULTBEE, ETC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT

Citator

Cited By

• Alex Hofrichter, P.A. v. Zuckerman & Venditti, P.A., 710 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
  …n, the trial court bifurcated the proceedings so that the parties’ accounting claims would be tried first. Those proceedings were concluded and resulted in a judgment in favor of Hofrichter. See Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); see also Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 676 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In the second phase of the ease, Zucker-man argued that Hofrichter’s substantive claims were barred by the economic loss rule. Zucker…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 676 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
  …we have already determined that Zuckerman was properly held individually liable together with Zueker-man, P.A. because the trial court properly pierced the corporate veil of Zuckerman “P.A.” See Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So. 2d 217, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) followed by Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A., 632 So. 2d at 731. In sum, it is now the law of the case that both Zuckerman, personally, and Zuckerman, P.A. are responsible for the fee award. It is time for this case to come to an e…
• Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 632 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
  …wed in this court. Another panel of this court concluded, in part, “Donald Zuckerman was properly held individually liable because the trial court properly pierced the corporate veil of his P.A.” Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So. 2d 217, 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Accordingly, the October 1, 1992 order is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings consistent herewith. Appeal No. 92-1519 affirmed; Appeal No. 92-2368 reversed and remanded.…