City of Pompano Beach v. Oltman
228 So. 2d 610
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 8, 1969·No. No. 69-127·Published·Cited by 5 cases
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
City of Pompano Beach v. Oltman, 228 So. 2d 610 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).
228 So. 2d 610 (City of Pompano Beach v. Oltman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Appel v. Scott
479 So. 2d 800 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Oltman v. City of Pompano Beach
46 Fla. Supp. 138 (Broward County Circuit Court, 1977)
Maszewski v. Piskadlo
318 So. 2d 226 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Cochran ex rel. Cochran v. Swindell
263 So. 2d 638 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
Glidden Co. v. Zuckerman
245 So. 2d 639 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)