interpreting Beard as holding that 768.28’s statute of limitations “was intended to apply to all actions permitted by the limited waiver of immunity, notwithstanding the fact that a different statute of limitations might apply had the action been brought against a private defendant”
How later courts described this case
- interpreting Beard as holding that 768.28’s statute of limitations “was intended to apply to all actions permitted by the limited waiver of immunity, notwithstanding the fact that a different statute of limitations might apply had the action been brought against a private defendant”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BOOTH, Judge,
dissenting.
I would affirm the trial court’s ruling that the federal statute of limitations applicable to maritime torts applies and bars the claim. The State’s four year statute cannot operate to enlarge the time allowed by the federal act.