Nadel v. Gross

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nadel v. Gross

523 So. 2d 1279, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1069, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1754, 1988 WL 40516

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 3, 1988·No. No. 87-2989·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of Count I of the complaint alleging fraud on the part of appellees. We find that count properly tracked the elements of fraudulent conduct in setting out the claim and stated facts with sufficient specificity. Peninsular Fla. Dist. Council of Assemblies of God v. Pan Am. Inv., 450 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We affirm the dismissal of Counts II and III for failure to state a cause of action. Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482 (Fla.1956); First Church of Christ Scientist v. City of St. Petersburg, 344 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of Count I of the complaint alleging fraud on the part of appellees. We find that count properly tracked the elements of fraudulent conduct in setting out the claim and stated facts with sufficient specificity. Peninsular Fla. Dist. Council of Assemblies of God v. Pan Am. Inv., 450 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We affirm the dismissal of Counts II and III for failure to state a cause of action. Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482 (Fla.1956); First Church of Christ Scientist v. City of St. Petersburg, 344 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

Nadel v. Gross, 523 So. 2d 1279, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1069, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1754, 1988 WL 40516 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

523 So. 2d 1279 (Nadel v. Gross) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related