PORTOFINO RESTAURANT, INC., AND RICHARD DAY, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
UTAH STATE RETIREMENT FUND, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Leave To Amend cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We conclude that on this record the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion for leave to amend their answer and affirmative defenses.1 Although Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So. 2d 623, 627 (Fla.1956), counsels liberality in granting leave to amend in the circumstances set forth therein, in the present case the subject matter of the proposed amendment was already embraced in appellants’ counterclaim, which remains pending, or is susceptible of being included in the pending counterclaim by amendment. As an alternative avenue of relief is available, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. We therefore affirm the summary judgment in favor of appellee but strike the execution pending adjudication of the counterclaim.
Affirmed as modified.
. We construe appellants' motion as a timely motion for rehearing pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dean v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Scannavino, Inc., 598 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…, she departed temporarily under circumstances known by her employer to constitute a “family emergency.” See Langley v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 444 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); see also, Ladson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 543 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (Schwartz, C.J., specially concurring). As Dean has aptly noted, the Unemployment Compensation Law should be liberally construed in order to achieve its declared purpose of providing relief to persons not employed through no fault…
-
Barragan v. Williams Island, 568 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…bor & Employment Sec., 455 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The employee was not warned that further absences would subject him to discharge and then fired, notwithstanding that he reported to work as in Ladson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 543 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The Unemployment Appeals Commission did not override or ignore factual determinations made in favor of a claimant on subtle factual distinctions as in Wyche v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 469 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985…
-
Williams v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Nelson & Co., 608 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…emergency does not constitute misconduct. It was therefore erroneous for the Commission to (in effect) redetermine factual issues found by the referee, based on competent, substantial evidence. See Ladson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 543 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Campbell v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 455 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Howlett v. South Broward Hospital Tax District, 451 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Hartenstein v. Florida Department of Labor, 383 So.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1956)