Meyer v. Meyer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Meyer v. Meyer

592 So. 2d 382, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 659, 1992 WL 15898

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 1992

DocketNo. 91-01146

StatusPublished

This text of 592 So. 2d 382 (Meyer v. Meyer) 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

Meyer v. Meyer, 592 So. 2d 382, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 659, 1992 WL 15898 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a final judgment entered in favor of Monsanto Company Employee Benefits Plans Committee after an order dismissing appellant’s complaint. The order dismissing the complaint states in pertinent part:

IT IS ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

1. Monsanto’s motion to strike the claim for punitive damages is granted.

2. Monsanto’s motion to strike the claim for mental anguish is granted.

3. Monsanto’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action is granted.

4. Monsanto’s motion to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel is granted with prejudice.

Appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, and (2) the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel. We affirm without discussion the trial court’s order dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. However, we must reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the complaint on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds. See Pfeiffer v. Roux Laboratories, Inc., 547 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), and Daniel International Corporation v. Better Construction, Inc., 593 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

BOOTH, SHIVERS and MINER, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a final judgment entered in favor of Monsanto Company Employee Benefits Plans Committee after an order dismissing appellant’s complaint. The order dismissing the complaint states in pertinent part:

IT IS ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

1. Monsanto’s motion to strike the claim for punitive damages is granted.

2. Monsanto’s motion to strike the claim for mental anguish is granted.

3. Monsanto’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action is granted.

4. Monsanto’s motion to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel is granted with prejudice.

Appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, and (2) the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel. We affirm without discussion the trial court’s order dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. However, we must reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the complaint on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds. See Pfeiffer v. Roux Laboratories, Inc., 547 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), and Daniel International Corporation v. Better Construction, Inc., 593 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

BOOTH, SHIVERS and MINER, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 So. 2d 382, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 659, 1992 WL 15898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-meyer-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack