PHILIP MARKS, APPELLANT,
v.
WATER-BOGGAN INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from a final order of dismissal pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e).
It is appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in dismissing his cause since the notice of hearing on the motion for order of dismissal bore the incorrect caption “Jay Marschall and Marilyn Marschall, his wife v. Water-Boggan International, Inc. Case No. 77-30058”, and not the name of the plaintiff in this cause.
It appears from the record that the court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action. The notice was not addressed to the plaintiff, although it bore the number of the case which plaintiff had pending against defendants. The notice bore an incorrect caption which was in no way similar to the name of plaintiff.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Thibodeaux, 547 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…ng any evidence. To apply a harmless error test to the absolute rule laid down in Tillman that a trial judge cannot weigh evidence when ruling on a motion for involuntary dismissal would effectively abrogate the rule. Miami Purveyors, Inc. v. Forte, 407 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We, accordingly, reverse and remand for a new trial. See Miami Purveyors, Inc. Reversed and remanded. CAMPBELL, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.…
-
Wygodny v. K-Site 600 Assocs., 644 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…. It was therefore error for the trial court to adjudicate this ease on the merits at the close of the plaintiffs case in chief. Further, this court has held that this error is not subject to the harmless error test. Miami Purveyors, Inc. v. Forte, 407 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 413 So. 2d 876 (Fla.1982). Thus, we must reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial only against K-Site 600 Associates and Ben Franklin Properties 500, Inc. As to defendant Mystic Pointe, we affirm the judgment…
-
Fason v. Empac Int'l Corp., 648 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ered by the trial court when deciding whether an involuntary dismissal was appropriate. Defenses are not to be considered by the trial court in ruling on a motion for involuntary dismissal directed at a complaint. See Miami Purveyors, Inc. v. Forte, 407 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, [*1271] 413 So. 2d 876 (Fla.1982). In Forte, the court held that an order of involuntary dismissal should be reversed because the evidence pri-ma facie established that defendant orally agreed he would be liable for…