Brake v. Shoemaker

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brake v. Shoemaker

208 So. 2d 107, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5702

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 19, 1968

DocketNo. 67-661

StatusPublished

This text of 208 So. 2d 107 (Brake v. Shoemaker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brake v. Shoemaker, 208 So. 2d 107, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5702 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this action for libel the trial court first denied a motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Thereafter the defendants answered and moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiff moved for summary judgment as to liability. These motions were supported and opposed respectively by evidentiary matter. After hearing but prior to a ruling thereon the pleadings were amended, and defendants renewed their motion to dismiss. Thereupon the trial court entered the order from which the plaintiff now appeals, denying the motions for summary judgment, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and dismissing the cause. On consideration of the record and briefs, we affirm on authority of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686. See also Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this action for libel the trial court first denied a motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Thereafter the defendants answered and moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiff moved for summary judgment as to liability. These motions were supported and opposed respectively by evidentiary matter. After hearing but prior to a ruling thereon the pleadings were amended, and defendants renewed their motion to dismiss. Thereupon the trial court entered the order from which the plaintiff now appeals, denying the motions for summary judgment, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and dismissing the cause. On consideration of the record and briefs, we affirm on authority of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686. See also Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 So. 2d 107, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brake-v-shoemaker-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack