WILLIAM RANEY, D/B/A KRONE AVENUE NURSERY, APPELLANT,
v.
JIMMIE DIESEL CORP. 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.
Appellant Raney appealed the dismissal of his breach of contract and negligence claims against Jimmie Diesel Corp. and Miller Bearings. The court reversed, holding that the amended complaint adequately stated causes of action and that the trial court improperly dismissed the claims at the motion to dismiss stage.
The court held that the amended complaint in Counts I and IV adequately stated causes of action for breach of contract and in Counts II and V adequately stated causes of action for negligence against the appellees, contrary to the trial court's determination.
[1] A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged in a complaint to state a cause of action.
[2] When ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the function of a motion to dismiss a complaint is to raise as a question of law the sufficiency of the facts alleged to state a cause of action. A court is not permitted to speculate as to whether a plaintiff will be able to prove the allegations, rather a court is required to accept all well pleaded allegations contained in the complaint as true.”
Establishes the legal standard governing motions to dismiss and the court's obligation to accept well-pleaded facts as true.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed an amended complaint containing five counts. Counts I and II alleged breach of contract and negligence against Jimmie Diesel Corporati…
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 Elements Of Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff below, brings this appeal from an order titled order on all pending motions to dismiss dated July 25, 1977, entered by the trial court pursuant to appellees’, defendants below, motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The order dismissed with prejudice Counts o I, II, IV, and V of appellant’s amended complaint. We reverse.
Counts I and II of the amended complaint attempted to state a cause of action against appellee Jimmie Diesel Corporation for breach of contract and negligence, respectively. Counts IV and V of the amended complaint attempted to state a cause of action against appellee Miller Bearings of Orlando, Inc., for breach of contract and negligence, respectively. Both appellees filed motions to dismiss appellant’s amended complaint. Except as to Count III of the amended complaint which sought specific performance, the trial court entered the order appealed dismissing with prejudice the amended complaint. Basically, the function of a motion to dismiss a complaint is to raise as a question of law the sufficiency of the facts alleged to state a cause of action. A court is not permitted to speculate as to whether a plaintiff will be able to prove the allegations, rather a court is required to accept all well pleaded allegations contained in the complaint as .true. See, e. g., Pizzie v. Central Bank and Trust Co., 250 So. 2d 895 (Fla.1971); Connolly v. Sebeco, 89 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1956); and Johnson v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co., 169 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).
The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are set forth, e. g., in Cook v. Underwriters National Assurance Co., 221 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); the elements for a cause of action for negligence are set forth, e. g., in Lake Parker Mall, Inc. v. Carson, 327 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
Applying the principles set forth above, in the light of the requisite elements of causes of action for breach of contract and for negligence, contrary to the trial court’s determination, we are of the opinion that appellant’s amended complaint in Counts I and IV set forth causes of action for breach of contract and in Counts II and V causes of action for negligence against appellees. Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. This opinion should not, in any way, he considered in passing upon the ability of appellant to prove or fail to prove the allegations set forth in his amended complaint.
In view of our opinion expressed above, it is unnecessary to consider the other points raised by appellant on appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Chaires v. N. Fla. Nat'l Bank, 432 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…omplaint is to raise as a question of law the sufficiency of the facts alleged to state a cause of action, and a court is not permitted to speculate as to whether a plaintiff has any prospect of proving the allegations. Raney v. Jimmie Diesel Corp., 362 So. 2d 997, 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); accord, Connelly v. Merritt, 273 So. 2d 7, 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Count II purports to state a statutory cause of action for treble damages for theft pursuant to Section 812.035(7), Fla. Stats. Count III purports to state a…
-
Copeland v. The Celotex Corp., 447 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…o dismiss is not a substitute for a motion for summary judgment. Dunnell; see Pizzi. All allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true, Emile; Dunnell; Kaufman v. A-l Bus Lines, 363 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Raney v. Jimmie Diesel Corp., 362 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see Pizzi; a court is not free to speculate as to what may indeed be true or ultimately proven, Emile; Dunnell; Raney; see Pizzi; Kaufman. In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the fundamental question before the court is whether the…
-
VON Eng'g Co. v. R.W. Roberts Constr. Co., Inc., 457 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…on is whether the trial court erred in dismissing this amended complaint. The purpose of a motion to dismiss a complaint is to raise as a question of law the sufficiency of the facts alleged to state a cause of action. Raney v. Jimmie Diesel Corp., 362 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). In considering such a motion, the trial court is required to accept all well pleaded allegations in the complaint as true. Id. Principles of indemnity law hold that when a surety has notice of a suit against the principal and is…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1956)
- Pizzi v. Cent. Bank & Tr. Co., 250 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1971)
- Lake Parker Mall, Inc. v. Laurenne A. Carson, 327 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Earle Johnson v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 169 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Aldridge v. Bean, 221 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Cook v. Underwriters Nat'l Assurance Co., 221 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)