Lanzo Construction Co. v. Orange County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lanzo Construction Co. v. Orange County

546 So. 2d 432, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1384, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3223, 1989 WL 73900

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1659

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 546 So. 2d 432 (Lanzo Construction Co. v. Orange County) 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

Lanzo Construction Co. v. Orange County, 546 So. 2d 432, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1384, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3223, 1989 WL 73900 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

GOSHORN, Judge.

Lanzo Construction Company appeals the dismissal with prejudice of its third amended complaint against both Orange County, Florida and Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. The function of a motion to dismiss is to raise a question of law concerning the sufficiency of the alleged facts to state a cause of action. Because the motion serves only to test the sufficiency of the pleadings it must be decided on questions of law only and thus all material facts properly pleaded are admitted as true. See e.g. Crompton v. Kirkland, 24 So.2d 902, 904 (Fla.1946); Temples v. Florida Industrial Construction Co., Inc., 310 So.2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); O’Neal v. Crumpton Builders Inc., 143 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). Since each of the eleven counts contains sufficient allegations to state a cause of action, we reverse.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and DANIEL, J., concur.

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

GOSHORN, Judge.

Lanzo Construction Company appeals the dismissal with prejudice of its third amended complaint against both Orange County, Florida and Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. The function of a motion to dismiss is to raise a question of law concerning the sufficiency of the alleged facts to state a cause of action. Because the motion serves only to test the sufficiency of the pleadings it must be decided on questions of law only and thus all material facts properly pleaded are admitted as true. See e.g. Crompton v. Kirkland, 24 So.2d 902, 904 (Fla.1946); Temples v. Florida Industrial Construction Co., Inc., 310 So.2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); O’Neal v. Crumpton Builders Inc., 143 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). Since each of the eleven counts contains sufficient allegations to state a cause of action, we reverse.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and DANIEL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 So. 2d 432, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1384, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3223, 1989 WL 73900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanzo-construction-co-v-orange-county-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack