Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

MILDRED R. JAYE, PETITIONER, v. ROYAL SAXON, INC., RESPONDENT.

HARDING, Justice.

We have for review Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 573 So.2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), in which The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance:

WHETHER CATE V. OLDHAM [ 450 So.2d 224 (Fla. 1984)] APPLIES TO PRIVATE LITIGANTS, TO BAR A SUBSEQUENT ACTION FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION WHERE THE PLAINTIFF HAS PREVIOUSLY ELECTED TO TAX COSTS AND/OR FEES AFTER SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING THE UNDERLYING ACTION?
Id. at 426. We answer the certified question in the negative based on our opinion in Londono v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So.2d 14 (Fla. 1992). Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with this Court's decision in Londono.

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

JAYE v. ROYAL SAXON, INC
(Oct 29, 1992)