Owens v. Cane Services, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Owens v. Cane Services, Inc.

602 So. 2d 564, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4807, 1992 WL 91412

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 6, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1225

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 602 So. 2d 564 (Owens v. Cane Services, Inc.) 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

Owens v. Cane Services, Inc., 602 So. 2d 564, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4807, 1992 WL 91412 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

We grant appellee Triangle Sod Farms Limited Partnership’s motion for clarification, withdraw our opinion of March 11, 1992 and substitute the following:

We affirm the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of Count IV of appellants’ amended third amended complaint against appel-lees Andrew Helgesen and Triangle Sod Farms Limited Partnership. See Norris & Associates of Naples, Inc. v. Elkins, 570 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We reverse the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of Count I of appellants’ amended third amended complaint as to appellees Angus Investments, Inc. and Edwin A. Jones. The complaint, though inartfully drafted, contains sufficient allegations to state a cause of action against these appel-lees for breach of contract.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

We grant appellee Triangle Sod Farms Limited Partnership’s motion for clarification, withdraw our opinion of March 11, 1992 and substitute the following:

We affirm the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of Count IV of appellants’ amended third amended complaint against appel-lees Andrew Helgesen and Triangle Sod Farms Limited Partnership. See Norris & Associates of Naples, Inc. v. Elkins, 570 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We reverse the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of Count I of appellants’ amended third amended complaint as to appellees Angus Investments, Inc. and Edwin A. Jones. The complaint, though inartfully drafted, contains sufficient allegations to state a cause of action against these appel-lees for breach of contract.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

602 So. 2d 564, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4807, 1992 WL 91412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-cane-services-inc-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack