Hanft v. Phelan, 67391
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Citation | 488 So.2d 531,11 Fla. L. Weekly 231 |
| Docket Number | No. 67391,67391 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 231 Donald HANFT, M.D., Appellant, v. Catherine Van Hoosear PHELAN, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 22 May 1986 |
Michael J. Murphy of Gaebe and Murphy, Coral Gables, for appellant.
Thomas J. Caldwell of Barkas and Caldwell, Miami, and David S. Currie of Gray, Gilliland and Gold, Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Joel S. Cronin of Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Roth and Romano, West Palm Beach, amicus curiae for The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
Donald Hanft appeals a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal, Phelan v. Hanft, 471 So.2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), wherein the district court reversed a judgment entered on the pleadings in favor of Hanft. Our first concern is whether an appeal as a matter of right exists in this case. Hanft claims that we have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each of these provisions gives us appellate jurisdiction over, and gives parties the right to appeal, a district court decision declaring invalid a state statute or a provision of the state constitution.
The district court reversed the judgment on the pleadings with directions to allow evidence to be presented on the issue of when Phelan knew or should have known that she had a cause of action against Hanft. * The court then set out three alternative rulings as to Phelan's claim depending on how the fact-finder answers this question on remand. First, if the fact-finder determines that Phelan discovered or should have discovered her cause of action within two years of August 14, 1976, the district court ruled that the two-year statute of limitations in section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1975), would bar her claim. Second, if the fact-finder determines that Phelan discovered or should have discovered her cause of action within four years of August 14, 1976, the district court ruled that the four-year statute of repose would probably bar her claim. Third, if the fact-finder determines that Phelan did not discover and should not have discovered her cause of action until August 4, 1981, the district court held that the statute of repose would unconstitutionally deny Phelan access to the courts. 471 So.2d at 650.
Article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution, provides, inter alia, that this Court "shall hear appeals ... from decisions of district courts of appeal declaring invalid a state ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State
...Kenyon, 688 P.2d 961; Austin v. Litvak, 682 P.2d 41 (Colo.1984); Phelan v. Hanft, 471 So.2d 648 (Fla.App.1985), appeal vacated 488 So.2d 531 (Fla.1986); Shessel v. Stroup, 253 Ga. 56, 316 S.E.2d 155 (1984); Clark v. Singer, 250 Ga. 470, 298 S.E.2d 484 (1983); Strahler v. St. Luke's Hosp., 7......
-
Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum
...of law based only on the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint, assuming the truth of the facts asserted. See Hanft v. Phelan, 488 So.2d 531, 532 n. 1 (Fla.1986). C. The Imposition of Sanctions for Defending a Trial Court The district court imposed sanctions on Boca Burger both for its ......
-
Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, Case No. SC01-1830 (FL 7/7/2005)
...of law based only on the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint, assuming the truth of the facts asserted. See Hanft v. Phelan, 488 So. 2d 531, 532 n.1 (Fla. 1986). C. The Imposition of Sanctions for Defending a Trial Court The district court imposed sanctions on Boca Burger both for its......
-
Kush v. Lloyd
...with the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Phelan v. Hanft, 471 So.2d 648 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), appeal dismissed, 488 So.2d 531 (Fla.1986). In Phelan, the court had rejected the defendant's contention that the plaintiff's malpractice action was barred by the four-year statute o......