BROWARD COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM J. ALSDORF ET AL., 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no reversible error and holding that while best practice is to recast amended pleadings in their entirety, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting an amendment showing only the specific changes.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by permitting a plaintiff to file an amended pleading showing only the specific nature of the amendment rather than recasting the entire pleading.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by permitting an amended pleading that shows only the specific amendments rather than recasting the entire pleading in its ent…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBroward County appealed an interlocutory decision in a case against William J. Alsdorf and others, raising several points that had been previously con…
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 Amended Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon examination of the briefs and record and after a review and consideration of the applicable law we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. In particular, several of the points raised in this interlocutory appeal were previously considered and found to be without merit. See Broward County v. Alsdorf, Fourth District Court of Appeal Case, 306 So. 2d 534, opinion filed December 13, 1974. We would observe, however, that with respect to amendments to a complaint, although the better practice is to recast the pleading in its entirety designating the pleading as amended, i. e., “first amended complaint” or “second amended complaint”, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the plaintiff-appellee to file a pleading merely showing the specific nature of the amendment. Stern v. Perma-Stress, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 134 So. 2d 509; see also Fla. Civil Practice Before Trial, sec. 27 (2d ed.) published by The Florida Bar. Inasmuch as the likelihood is great that this litigation will ultimately find its way back to the appellate system it would be beneficial if a new amended pleading is filed replacing the original complaint, as indicated in Stern, supra.
Affirmed.
OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Broward Cnty. v. Alsdorf, 312 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…rt of the power to finally dispose of the cause by dismissal or otherwise.” De La Portilla v. De La Portilla, 304 So. 2d 116, 118 (Fla.1974). Inasmuch as this court rendered its decision on the prior interlocutory appeal, Broward County v. Alsdorf, 306 So. 2d 535 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1975), filed January 24, 1975, the error here is harmless and the issue is moot. Affirmed. WALDEN, CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Stern v. Perma-Stress, Inc., 134 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Broward Cnty. v. Alsdorf, 306 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)