Nesbitt v. City of Miami

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nesbitt v. City of Miami

314 So. 2d 806, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13631

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 1975

DocketNo. 75-9

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 314 So. 2d 806 (Nesbitt v. City of Miami) 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

Nesbitt v. City of Miami, 314 So. 2d 806, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13631 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, who were the plaintiffs below, brought an action seeking to enjoin the City of Miami from the enforcement of the City ordinance which requires bars to close after 7:00 p. m. on Sunday. The trial court determined that the complaint did not state a legal basis for the injunction sought and, therefore, dismissed the complaint. Our examination of the complaint and the motion to dismiss reveals that the court properly determined that the complaint did not state a prima facie case for the injunction sought.

On this appeal, appellants complain primarily of the fact that they were not afforded an opportunity to amend the complaint. There is nothing in this record to show that the appellants sought an opportunity to amend. This could properly have been done by a petition for rehearing. In addition, there is nothing in the record or [807]*807in the argument to indicate the nature of the amendment appellants would like to make. See generally 25 Fla.Jur. Plead-lug's § 100 (1959), and cases cited thereat,

The correctness of the trial judge’s determination that the complaint did not state a cause of action is not argued in this court. We, therefore, decline to reverse.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, who were the plaintiffs below, brought an action seeking to enjoin the City of Miami from the enforcement of the City ordinance which requires bars to close after 7:00 p. m. on Sunday. The trial court determined that the complaint did not state a legal basis for the injunction sought and, therefore, dismissed the complaint. Our examination of the complaint and the motion to dismiss reveals that the court properly determined that the complaint did not state a prima facie case for the injunction sought.

On this appeal, appellants complain primarily of the fact that they were not afforded an opportunity to amend the complaint. There is nothing in this record to show that the appellants sought an opportunity to amend. This could properly have been done by a petition for rehearing. In addition, there is nothing in the record or [807]*807in the argument to indicate the nature of the amendment appellants would like to make. See generally 25 Fla.Jur. Plead-lug's § 100 (1959), and cases cited thereat,

The correctness of the trial judge’s determination that the complaint did not state a cause of action is not argued in this court. We, therefore, decline to reverse.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 So. 2d 806, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nesbitt-v-city-of-miami-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack