Dupont v. Flagler Estates Road & Water Control District

752 So. 2d 117, 2000 WL 235166
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 3, 2000·No. No. 5D99-669·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

In this case the trial judge entered a “Judgment on the Pleadings” after a hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Although the judgment was misnomered, we treat it for what it actually is— a judgment of dismissal with prejudice. The plaintiffs below twice failed to state a viable cause of action and have not suggested one in their argument on appeal.

We affirm on the authority of Stelzel v. South Indian River Water Control District, 486 So.2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) and [118]*118Smith v. Tynes, 412 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. JACOBUS, B.W., Associate Judge, dissents, with opinion.

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

Dupont v. Flagler Estates Road & Water Control District, 752 So. 2d 117, 2000 WL 235166 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

752 So. 2d 117 (Dupont v. Flagler Estates Road & Water Control District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Tynes
412 So. 2d 925 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Stelzel v. SO. INDIAN RIVER WATER CONT. DIST.
486 So. 2d 65 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Vanguard Insurance
400 So. 2d 184 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)