JOHN C. JOHNSON, CHARLES B. SMITH, FRANK HALACKA, CHARLES HUGEL AND MARTIN BECKERMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT THOBURN, RUPERT H. GILLESPIE, J. M. PEPPER, F. F. FARVER, FRANK T. SCOTT, AND F. A. FINLEY, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS, 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.
Appellants sought a declaratory judgment regarding a notice from the Florida State Board of Dental Examiners. The trial court dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the test for declaratory jurisdiction is whether a real controversy exists and the plaintiff states a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail.
The trial court erred in dismissing the complaint. The appellants adequately alleged a real controversy between themselves and the Board, entitling them to a declaratory decree under Chapter 87, Florida Statutes. The proper test for jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions is whether the plaintiff states a cause of action warranting judicial declaration of rights, not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail.
“It is apparent from the allegations of the complaint which, on a motion to dismiss, must be taken as true...that there was a real controversy between the appellant and the appellee and, as such, the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of his rights pursuant to the provisions of Ch. 87, Fla.Stat.”
Establishes that accepting complaint allegations as true, a real controversy existed justifying declaratory relief under Florida statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, as plaintiffs, filed a chancery action seeking a declaratory decree regarding a notice forwarded by the appellee Board of Dental Examiners…
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 Declaration Of Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, as plaintiff, instituted a chancery action seeking a declaratory decree of a certain notice forwarded to him by the appellee Board, to which complaint was filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. On said motion, the chancellor entered a final order of dismissal. The appellant seeks reversal of this order, and contends that it was erroneously entered by the chancellor in that it failed to award him a declaratory decree.
We agree with this contention. It is apparent from the allegations of the complaint which, on a motion to dismiss, must be taken as true [see: Bartholf v. Bartholf, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 905; Jackson Tom, Inc. v. Carlton, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 752]; that there was a real controversy between the appellant and the appellee and, as such, the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of his rights pursuant to the provisions of Ch. 87, Fla.Stat. F.S.A. It is apparent from the chancellor’s order that he determined that the plaintiff could not prevail upon a final hearing. However, dismissing such a cause does not provide any determination of a plaintiff’s rights. See: May v. Holley, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 636; 9 Fla.Jur., Declaratory Actions, § 48. The test of activation of jurisdiction to receive a declaratory decree is not whether the plaintiff will prevail, but whether he states a cause within the requirements of the statutes which warrants a judicial declaration of rights. *730See: Rosenhouse v. 1950 Spring Term Grand Jury, etc., Fla.1952, 56 So.2d 445; North Shore Realty Corporation v. Gallaher, Fla.App.1957, 99 So.2d 255.
Therefore, the order here under review is reversed, and this cause is remanded with directions to the chancellor to require the appellees-defendants to respond to the complaint.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phantom OF Clearwater, Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty., 894 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…an action for declaratory relief is “dismissed with prejudice” only when the complaint fails to state a claim requiring adjudication. See, e.g., Bella Isla Constr. Corp. v. Trust Mortgage Corp., 347 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Johnson v. Thoburn, 160 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Here, the parties assert that the intent of the judgment was not to dismiss the complaint, but actually to declare the parties’ respective rights under the ordinance, albeit not in the manner Phantom Fireworks desired. Because bo…
-
Ennis v. Warm Mineral Springs, Inc., 203 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…ct, see Platt v. General Development Corp., Fla.App. 1960, 122 So. 2d 48; Hankins v. Title & Trust Co. of Fla., Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 526; Modernage Furniture Corp. v. Miami Rug Co., Fla. 1955, 84 So. 2d 916; and Johnson v. Thoburn, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 729. Ennis contends here that the trial Judge under Section 87.02, should have declared his rights by interpreting the corporate resolution (employment contract), where a dispute admittedly existed as to the true meaning and effect of the resolution. T…
-
Conley v. Morley Realty Corp., 575 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…d 143 (Fla. 1961). See also Bella Isla Constr. Corp. v. Trust Mortgage Corp.; Hildebrandt v. Department of Natural Resources, 313 So. 2d 73 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Talcott v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 220 So. 2d 411 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); Johnson v. Thoburn, 160 So. 2d 729 (Fla.3d DCA 1964). Seller also argues in substance that the complaint was properly dismissed because buyer should instead bring a suit for damages. That contention is without merit, for the statute itself provides, “[t]he existence of another adequ…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- N. Shore Realty Corp. v. Gallaher, 99 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Bartholf v. Bartholf, 108 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- City OF N. Miami Beach v. Oska Realty Corp., 133 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Jackson TOM, Inc. v. Carlton, 133 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)