Case ID: so2d_730/html/0852-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. GREEN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roderick D. CLARK, Appellant, v. METRIC ENGINEERING, INC., Appellee.
    No. 98-1805.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 28, 1999.
    Cone & Cone; Podhurst, Orseck, Josefs-berg, Eaton, Meadow, Olin & Perwin, and Joel S. Perwin, for appellant.
    Daniels, Kashtan & Fornaris, and John E. Oramas, for appellee.
    Before GERSTEN, GODERICH, and GREEN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Clark v. L. & A. Contracting Co., 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2692, 730 So.2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Metropolitan Dade County v. Colina, 456 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied, 464 So.2d 554 (Fla.1985).

GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ., concur.

GREEN, J.

(specially concurring)

By virtue of this court’s denial of the motion for en banc rehearing of Clark v. L.& A. Contracting Co., 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2692, 730 So.2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (Shevin, J., dissenting), I agree that we are compelled to affirm the summary judgment in this cause. However, with all due respect, I believe that Clark was not correctly decided for the reasons expressed in Judge Shevin’s dissent in that case. See id. at D2692, at 288.