1611 EUCLID AVENUE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
RITTER, RITTER & ZARETSKY, A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FOR PROFIT, AND LOUIS ZARETSKY, ESQ., AND MARK LYNN, ESQ., APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing the plaintiffs fifth amended complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a cause of action. We reverse.
“A legal malpractice action has three elements: 1) the attorney’s employment; 2) the attorney’s neglect of a reasonable duty; and 3) the attorney’s negligence as the proximate cause of loss to the client.” Law Ofc. of David J. Stern, P.A. v. Sec. Nat’l Servicing Corp., 969 So. 2d 962, 966 (Fla.2007). The complaint and attached exhibits properly alleged these elements. As such, the dismissal was in error. Accordingly, we remand with instructions that plaintiffs cause be reinstated.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petruschke v. State, 125 So. 3d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…from commenting on matters unsupported by the evidence produced at trial.” Fenster v. State, 944 So. 2d 477, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Closing argument must be confined to record evidence and reasonable inferences from that evidence. Spoor v. State, 975 So. 2d 1233, 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Here, although the trial court initially sustained defense counsel’s objection to the prosecutor’s argument that a three-year-old does not have the capacity to fabricate allegations of sexual abuse, the court ultimately d…
-
Hosang v. State, 984 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…uctions from the facts and evidence.” Knoizen v. Bruegger, 713 So. 2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (citing Venning v. Roe, 616 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)). We hold that the state’s remarks in closing argument were improper. See Spoor v. State, 975 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Ford v. State, 702 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). As this was a contested identification case, the error was not harmless. In addition, Hosang argues that the jury instructions and verdict form were not [*673] clear as to when…
-
Gabriel v. State, 254 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…esterday [in trial] . . . .” Appellant’s objection was again overruled. “A prosecutor must confine his closing argument to record evidence and ‘must not make comments which could not be reasonably inferred from the evidence.’” See Spoor v. State, 975 So. 2d 1233, 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In Spoor, the defense had argued in closing that the victim’s identification of the defendant was suspect because she had not noticed the extensive tattoos on his arms. Id. at 1234. During rebuttal, the prosecutor said…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- LAW Off. OF David J. Stern, P.A. v. Sec. Nat'l Servicing Corp., 969 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 2007)