C.J. v. State

58 So. 3d 392, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5123
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 13, 2011
DocketNo. 1D10-5174
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 So. 3d 392 (C.J. v. State) 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
C.J. v. State, 58 So. 3d 392, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5123 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

WOLF, J.

Appellants seek review of an order granting appellee’s unsworn Motion to Dismiss appellants’ Petition for Dependency. We reverse because the factual allegations contained within the four corners of the pleading, when construed in favor of appellants, are legally sufficient to prove dependency pursuant to section 39.01(15), Florida Statutes (2010). See Dep’t of Children & Families v. R.V., 917 So.2d 334 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (noting that motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.235(b) are akin to motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action in civil proceedings); Locker v. United Pharm. Group, Inc., 46 So.3d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (noting that a trial court must accept all factual allegations in the four corners of an initial pleading as true and must construe those facts in a manner favorable to the filing party when considering a motion to dismiss); C.J. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 756 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (finding Guardian Ad Litem’s report was inadmissible hearsay).

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

Related

CJ v. State
58 So. 3d 392 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 So. 3d 392, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cj-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.