Muldrow v. Starr

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Muldrow v. Starr

401 So. 2d 939, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20771

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 4, 1981

DocketNo. AD-15

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 401 So. 2d 939 (Muldrow v. Starr) 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

Muldrow v. Starr, 401 So. 2d 939, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20771 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Muldrow appeals an order dismissing his complaint with prejudice as to all defendants except G. Daviss Starr and his wife Bargara G., and as to them, dismissing the complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. After due consideration of the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the order of the trial court in all respects except as to the dismissal with prejudice of Count X and defendant Samuel Givens. The allegations against the other defendants dismissed with prejudice are frivolous and vexatious, almost totally defying reasonable comprehension, and involve statements made in court proceedings and matters resolved in prior litigation. However, as to Count X, involving defendant Samuel Givens, appellant’s allegations may involve matters that have not been litigated before and may arguably have merit if properly pleaded.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the trial court is directed to enter an amended order dismissing Count X without prejudice and with leave to amend.

MILLS, ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Muldrow appeals an order dismissing his complaint with prejudice as to all defendants except G. Daviss Starr and his wife Bargara G., and as to them, dismissing the complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. After due consideration of the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the order of the trial court in all respects except as to the dismissal with prejudice of Count X and defendant Samuel Givens. The allegations against the other defendants dismissed with prejudice are frivolous and vexatious, almost totally defying reasonable comprehension, and involve statements made in court proceedings and matters resolved in prior litigation. However, as to Count X, involving defendant Samuel Givens, appellant’s allegations may involve matters that have not been litigated before and may arguably have merit if properly pleaded.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the trial court is directed to enter an amended order dismissing Count X without prejudice and with leave to amend.

MILLS, ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

401 So. 2d 939, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muldrow-v-starr-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack