JEREMIAH J. ASHCROFT, CARRIE P. SMITH, ROBERT F. MALONEY AND JAMES H. DEESE, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE MELBOURNE CIVIC IMPROVEMENT BOARD, M. H. ARBOGAST, ORREN M. CROSS, JAMES ADSIT, EARL CARMICHAEL, JOHN B. YEISLEY, MELBOURNE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., AND FOLSOM AND WATERBURY, INC., 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.
The court held that the plaintiffs' third amended complaint stated a cause of action sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs, residents and taxpayers, challenged the City of Melbourne's use of public funds to construct an irrigation system at a city-owned golf cou…
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 Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs’ thirty page, five count, third amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice in the circuit court without comment or reason stated. We reverse.
Plaintiffs are residents and tax payers of the City of Melbourne. Their chief grievance centers upon the act of the City, through the Melbourne Civic Improvement Board, in constructing with public monies an irrigation system at the city-owned *437golf course, which course is under lease to a private party, the Melbourne Golf and Country Club, Inc. The complaint is prolix and seeks an injunction, an accounting, declaratory relief and other remedies based upon multiple theories.
We do not believe it would be helpful to extend this opinion by the reproduction here of the complaint. Suffice it to say we have carefully assayed it in the light of the most general grounds found in the Motions to Dismiss1 and are of the opinion that it states a cause of action sufficient to survive these assaults based primarily and at least upon the allegations of the complaint concerning a misuse of public money. See Lewis v. Peters, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 489; Mayes Printing Company v. Flowers, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 859; 43 C.J.S. Injunctions § 122.
Reversed.
REED, J., concurs.
CROSS, C. J., dissents, without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fornes v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 455 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…kman v. Whitehurst, 73 Fla. 152, 74 So. 205 (1917); Anderson v. Fuller, 51 Fla. 380, 41 So. 684 (1906); Peck v. Spencer, 26 Fla. 23, 7 So. 642 (1890); see also Lewis v. Peters, 66 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1953); Ashcroft v. Melbourne Civic Improvement Board, 232 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). In addition, those cases are not inconsistent with the more recent decisions holding that other grounds giving rise to standing in this situation are a) where the attack is based upon constitutional grounds as in Department of A…
Authorities Cited
- Mayes Printing Co. v. Flowers, 154 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Jordan v. City OF Tampa, 66 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1953)