North Broward Radiologists, P.A. v. Rush

District Court of Appeal of Florida

North Broward Radiologists, P.A. v. Rush

541 So. 2d 705, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 787, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1537, 1989 WL 27934

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 29, 1989

DocketNo. 88-0296

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 541 So. 2d 705 (North Broward Radiologists, P.A. v. Rush) 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

North Broward Radiologists, P.A. v. Rush, 541 So. 2d 705, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 787, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1537, 1989 WL 27934 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from dismissal of a complaint with prejudice. We do not attempt to second-guess the trial court as to the reasons for dismissal of the various counts of the complaint, which were based upon several different causes of action. We hold simply that the complaint did sufficiently allege a cause of action for tor-tious interference with an advantageous business relationship (see, e.g., DeRitis v. AHZ Corp., 444 So.2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)), and for breach of contract (by violating the alleged covenant not to compete). See Akey v. Murphy, 238 So.2d 94 (Fla.1970). See also Chessick Clinic, P.A. v. Jones, 367 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.

HERSEY, C.J., and WALDEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from dismissal of a complaint with prejudice. We do not attempt to second-guess the trial court as to the reasons for dismissal of the various counts of the complaint, which were based upon several different causes of action. We hold simply that the complaint did sufficiently allege a cause of action for tor-tious interference with an advantageous business relationship (see, e.g., DeRitis v. AHZ Corp., 444 So.2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)), and for breach of contract (by violating the alleged covenant not to compete). See Akey v. Murphy, 238 So.2d 94 (Fla.1970). See also Chessick Clinic, P.A. v. Jones, 367 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.

HERSEY, C.J., and WALDEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

541 So. 2d 705, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 787, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1537, 1989 WL 27934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-broward-radiologists-pa-v-rush-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack