Otis v. Wieder

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Otis v. Wieder

183 So. 2d 235, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5508

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 1966

DocketNo. 65-410

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 183 So. 2d 235 (Otis v. Wieder) 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

Otis v. Wieder, 183 So. 2d 235, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5508 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order of the trial judge dismissing appellant’s counterclaim, for failure to state a cause of action, is affirmed upon authority of Raphael v. Koretzky, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 746. See also Weekley v. Knight, 116 Fla. 721, 156 So. 625 (1934); Suritz v. Kelner, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 831; Campbell v. Magana, 184 Cal.App.2d 751, 8 Cal.Rptr. 32 (1960); and anno., 45 A.L.R.2d 5.

Appellant’s contention that she was deprived of an opportunity to amend her counterclaim is conclusively refuted by the record.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order of the trial judge dismissing appellant’s counterclaim, for failure to state a cause of action, is affirmed upon authority of Raphael v. Koretzky, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 746. See also Weekley v. Knight, 116 Fla. 721, 156 So. 625 (1934); Suritz v. Kelner, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 831; Campbell v. Magana, 184 Cal.App.2d 751, 8 Cal.Rptr. 32 (1960); and anno., 45 A.L.R.2d 5.

Appellant’s contention that she was deprived of an opportunity to amend her counterclaim is conclusively refuted by the record.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 So. 2d 235, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otis-v-wieder-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack