Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Industries

22 So. 3d 36 (2009)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Industries

Florida Supreme Court
22 So. 3d 36 (2009)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Larson & Larson, P.A. (Larson) (plaintiff) represented TSE Industries (TSE) (defendant) in a patent-infringement claim against Franklynn Industries, Inc. (Franklynn) in federal district court. After a jury trial, the court ruled for Franklynn, holding that TSE’s patent was invalid. The jury verdict was rendered final in September 2002. Franklynn filed a post-judgment motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees against TSE. The trial court granted Franklynn’s motion, holding that TSE failed to disclose known issues regarding the validity of its patent. TSE and Franklynn settled on the amount TSE would pay Franklynn and entered a stipulation dismissing Franklynn’s fee-and-sanctions claim on October 10, 2002. On October 5, 2004, TSE sued Larson for legal malpractice, arguing that Larson’s negligence caused TSE to incur unnecessary costs (1) in the underlying patent-infringement litigation; and (2) to settle Franklynn’s fees-and-sanctions claim. Larson moved for summary judgment, arguing that TSE’s claim was time-barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations because the final judgment in the patent-infringement litigation was entered in September 2002. The trial court agreed and dismissed TSE’s claim. On appeal, the appellate court reversed, holding that TSE’s claim was timely because the statute of limitations did not start to run until TSE and Franklynn settled Franklynn’s fees-and-sanctions claim and filed the associated stipulation of dismissal on October 10, 2002. Larson appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Canady, J.)

Dissent (Lewis, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 812,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership