MIGUEL ROMERO, APPELLANT,
v.
CAMPOAMOR MODERN DAIRY, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a complaint alleging a conspiracy. The court found that the complaint failed to allege any actionable civil wrong committed by the defendant.
No, the amended complaint fails to allege any actionable civil wrong committed by the defendant as part of the alleged conspiracy.
“Careful examination of the amended complaint as set forth in the record on appeal discloses that it fails to allege any actionable civil wrong perpetrated by the defendant pursuant to the alleged "conspiracy".”
This quote explains the court's primary reason for affirming the dismissal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, as plaintiff, filed an action seeking damages for an alleged conspiracy by the corporate defendant-appellee. The defendant filed a moti…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Conspiracy cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from final judgment adverse to the appellant as plaintiff in an action below seeking damages by reason of an alleged conspiracy by the corporate defendant-appellee. The amended complaint was dismissed on motion and final judgment was entered for the defendant. Careful examination of the amended complaint as set forth in the record on appeal discloses that it fails to allege any actionable civil wrong perpetrated by the defendant pursuant to the alleged “conspiracy”. There appears no error in the final judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Liappas v. Augoustis et al., Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 582; Robertson v. Industrial Insurance Co., Fla. 1954, 75 So.2d 198, 45 A.L.R.2d 1292; 6 Fla.Jur., Conspiracy, Section 13, pages 244, 245.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, C. J., and SMITH and WFIITE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Linder v. Calero Portocarrero, 747 F. Supp. 1452 (S.D. Fla. 1990)
Authorities Cited
- Robertson v. Indus. Ins. Co., 75 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1954)
- Liappas v. Augoustis, 47 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1950)