Eusepi v. Magruder Eye Institute

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• acknowledging that rule 1.260 \specifies only that the motion [for substitution] be filed within ninety days\ and that \the ninety-day period referenced in the rule has served its purpose once the motion is filed.\ (emphasis added)
• “[W]here the estate is not in existence at the time the court considers the motion [for substitution], the court should not enter an order granting the motion.”
• medical negligence suit against doctor arising out of eye surgery that resulted in plaintiff’s permanent and near complete loss of vision survived plaintiff’s death from unrelated lung cancer
• “The rule is supposed to dispel rigidity, create flexibility and be given liberal effect.”
• \Rule 1.260 is in its present form precisely so that the -5- process of substitution of a new party for a party who dies while litigation is pending will not cause otherwise meritorious actions to be lost.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).