City of Pompano Beach v. Oltman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Pompano Beach v. Oltman

228 So. 2d 610

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 8, 1969

DocketNo. 69-127

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 228 So. 2d 610 (City of Pompano Beach v. Oltman) 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

City of Pompano Beach v. Oltman, 228 So. 2d 610 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A judgment for the defendant on a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 1.140(c), RCP, 30 F.S.A., may not be granted on the basis of allegations in the defendant’s answer where no reply is required because such allegations are deemed denied, Miller v. Eatmon, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 523. For this reason, we affirm the order of the trial court denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Affirmed.

McCAIN and REED, JJT., concur. CROSS, C. J., concurs in conclusion.

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

PER CURIAM.

A judgment for the defendant on a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 1.140(c), RCP, 30 F.S.A., may not be granted on the basis of allegations in the defendant’s answer where no reply is required because such allegations are deemed denied, Miller v. Eatmon, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 523. For this reason, we affirm the order of the trial court denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Affirmed.

McCAIN and REED, JJT., concur. CROSS, C. J., concurs in conclusion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 So. 2d 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-pompano-beach-v-oltman-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack