ADAMS ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS CORPORATION, ALUMINUM INDUSTRIES, INC., WEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. AND ALUMINUM HARDWARE CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
Adams Engineering appealed a judgment on the pleadings granted in favor of defendants in a cost-sharing dispute arising from a patent infringement defense. The court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked authority to grant judgment on the pleadings when material factual allegations in the complaint were not clearly resolved against the moving defendants.
The trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings because the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint were required to be accepted as true, and neither the main issues raised by the complaint nor the affirmative defense demonstrated that the defendants were clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
“Since the judgment was entered under the provisions of Rule 1.11(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., the court was without authority to consider matters outside of the pleadings.”
Establishes the procedural limitation on judgment on the pleadings—the court can only examine the pleadings themselves
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdams Engineering alleged that the corporate defendants had agreed to share proportionately the costs and expenses of defending a patent infringement …
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 Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order granting a judgment on the pleadings in an action instituted by the appellant for the recoupment from several corporate appellees of certain costs expended by the appellant in the defense of a patent infringement suit.
It was alleged in the complaint that the corporate appellees had agreed with the appellant that all would share proportionately the cost and expenses of defending the *560patent infringement suit filed or about to be filed in the federal district court. The complaint was amended to bring in an additional defendant and answers were filed to the complaint and amended complaint, which in the main constituted general denials, except for the answer of the appellee Aluminum Hardware Corporation which set forth an affirmative defense of the statute of limitations.
Although the appellant assigns as error the trial court’s denial of its motion for partial summary judgment on liability, nevertheless the main thrust of its argument on appeal is that the trial court was in error in granting a final judgment on the pleadings in favor of the appellees Construction Products and Aluminum Hardware. We are in accord with the appellant’s contention that it was error to grant the final judgment on the pleadings and reverse.
At the time of the entry of the judgment on the pleadings, the cause was at issue and ready for trial upon the complaint as amended, alleging a contractual obligation on the part of the corporate appellees to pay proportionate shares of the cost of defending a patent infringement suit, general denials and the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations. Since the judgment was entered under the provisions of Rule 1.11(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., the court was without authority to consider matters outside of the pleadings. Since the appellees Construction Products and Aluminum Hardware were the movants for a judgment on the pleadings, the well pleaded material allegations of the complaint are required to be taken as true, whereas allegations of appellees’ answers are of no- avail to them. The inquiry then is whether the complaint states a cause of action. A judgment on the pleadings is usually granted only if, on the facts as admitted, the moving party is clearly entitled to a judgment. See Reinhard v. Bliss, Fla. 1956, 85 So.2d 131; Storer v. Florida Sportservice, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 433. Therefore, as neither the main issues raised by complaint nor those in the affirmative defense demonstrated a right in the movants to a judgment as a matter of law, it was error for the trial judge to grant the motion.
We have considered the appellant’s contention that the partial summary judgment as to liability should have been rendered in its favor and find same to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grossman v. Segal, 270 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…Fla.1969, 220 So. 2d 908; Fleming v. Florida Power Corp., Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 546; Adams Engineering Co. v. Construction Products Corp., Fla.App.1962, 141 So. 2d 300, opinion quashed on other grounds, Fla., 156 So. 2d .497, on remand, Fla.App., 158 So. 2d 559; Schumaker v. Orange State Oil Co., Fla.App.1962, 141 So. 2d 628. In the case sub judice defendant had engaged in delaying tactics and was not free from criticism. The trial judge properly ex'ercised his discretion and denied the motion to avoid “an…
-
Mr. & Mrs. Dale Appel v. Scott, 479 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ment on the pleadings, the court’s sole inquiry is whether the complaint stated a cause of action. Butts v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 207 So. 2d 73, 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Adams Engineering Co., Inc. v. Construction Products Corp., 158 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). When considering such a motion, all material allegations of the opposing party are taken as true, and all of the movant’s allegations in the answer are deemed denied. Butts, 207 So. 2d at 75. A defendant may not obtain a jud…
-
ACE Delivery Serv., Inc. v. Pickett, 274 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…zyk v. Fritz, Fla.1969, 220 So. 2d 908; Fleming v. Florida Power Corp., Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 546; Adams Engineering Company v. Construction Products Corp., Fla.App. 1962, 141 So. 2d 300, opinion quashed on other grounds 156 So. 2d 497, on remand 158 So. 2d 559. The trial court properly exercised his discretion and granted the motion. Rule 1.420(e), RCP, clearly requires that the pleading be filed with the court in order to toll the running of the year. Consequently, the order entered by the trial court…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reinhard v. Bliss, 85 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1956)
- Storer v. Fla. Sportservice, Inc., 115 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Chateau Enters., Inc. v. Earnest Overstreet, 115 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)