Cravero Home Building Co. v. Jaffe

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cravero Home Building Co. v. Jaffe

142 So. 2d 342, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3340

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 1962

DocketNo. 62-61

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 142 So. 2d 342 (Cravero Home Building Co. v. Jaffe) 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

Cravero Home Building Co. v. Jaffe, 142 So. 2d 342, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3340 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PEARSON, TILLMAN, Chief Judge.

By this interlocutory appeal the defendants question the trial court’s order denying their motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. By way of introduction it should be pointed out that all orders come to this court with a presumption of their correctness. City of West Palm Beach v. Ryder, 73 Fla. 558, 74 So. 603. State v. Town of Sweetwater, Fla.1959, 112 So.2d 852.

This principle is especially strong when applied to an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss where the progress of the cause is delayed pending a review of the trial judge’s decision. Further, the importance of the decision seldom justifies the delay necessary for an exhaustive opinion.

For an appellate court to reverse the decision of a trial judge denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss an adversary’s complaint, it must clearly appear that the pleading entirely fails to state a cause of action. Regan v. Davis, Fla.App. 1957, 97 So.2d 324. Such is in accordance with the spirit of the 1954 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

Having applied these principles to the interlocutory order appealed, we hold that the order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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