Lanzo Construction Co. v. Orange County

546 So. 2d 432, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1384, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3223, 1989 WL 73900
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 8, 1989·No. No. 88-1659·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

546 So. 2d 432 (Lanzo Construction Co. v. Orange County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bozeman v. Hernando County
548 So. 2d 300 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)