STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. DADE COUNTY OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FAMILY OPTICAL SERVICE, APPELLEE
STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. DADE COUNTY OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
FAMILY OPTICAL SERVICE, APPELLEE
209 So. 2d 267
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1968)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court which dismissed the plaintiff’s amended complaint with prejudice.
An examination of the amended complaint reveals that it did not contain sufficient allegations of a nuisance, as defined in Fla.Stat. § 823.05, F.S.A., as to entitle the plaintiff to bring this action pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 64.11, F.S.A. The alleged misleading advertising may not be enjoined as a nuisance by this plaintiff under the facts here alleged. See also Fla.Stat. §§ 817.46 and 463.19, F.S.A.; Pompano Horse Club v. State, 93 Fla. 415, 111 So. 801, 52 A.L.R. 51 (1927).
Accordingly, the order of dismissal is hereby
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rankin v. State, 218 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 209 So. 2d 267.…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Dade Cnty. Optometric Ass'n, Inc. v. S. Miami Vision Serv., 209 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…PER CURIAM. The facts alleged in this case are substantially the same as those alleged in State of Florida ex rel. Dade County Optometric Association, Inc. v. Family Optical Service, Fla.App. 1968, 209 So. 2d 267 (opinion released this day). We hold that this opinion is controlling here. Accordingly, the order of dismissal with prejudice is hereby Affirmed.…
-
Schoemaker v. State, 210 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Rankin v. State, Second District Court of Appeal, 209 So. 2d 267, Opinion filed April 17, 1968; Nelson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 506. LILES, C. J., and PIERCE and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Pompano Horse Club, Inc. v. State ex rel. John M. Bryan, 93 Fla. 415 (Fla. 1927)