Palma v. Zerbey

189 So. 2d 510
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 26, 1966·No. 66-4·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

189 So.2d 510 (1966)

Salvatore V. PALMA, for Use and Benefit of Golden Palms, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellant,
v.
John M. ZERBEY, Appellee.

No. 66-4.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 26, 1966.
Rehearing Denied September 13, 1966.

Taylor, Brion, Buker, Hames & Greene and Robert J. Paterno, Miami, for appellant.

Robertson, McLeod & Maloy, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C.J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

*511 PER CURIAM.

By this appeal we are called upon to review a final order of dismissal of an amended complaint, after the plaintiff had declined to amend further. We affirm.

It is apparent that the action attempted to be pleaded was in the nature of a stockholder's derivative action on behalf of a corporation. We fail to find sufficient allegations in the complaint to indicate both wrongful acts and damage to the corporation. See: James Talcott, Inc. v. McDowell, Fla.App. 1962, 148 So.2d 36; Maronek v. Atlantis Hotel, Inc., Fla.App. 1963, 148 So.2d 721; Citizens National Bank of St. Petersburg v. Peters, Fla.App. 1965, 175 So.2d 54.

Affirmed.

PEARSON, J., dissents.

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

Palma v. Zerbey, 189 So. 2d 510 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

189 So. 2d 510 (Palma v. Zerbey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

ROBERT VOLE v. ARCHIE DRURY
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2023
Schein v. Chasen
313 So. 2d 739 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1975)
Lehman Brothers v. Schein
416 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Schein v. Chasen
478 F.2d 817 (Second Circuit, 1973)
Gildenhorn v. Lum's Inc.
335 F. Supp. 329 (S.D. New York, 1971)
Palma v. Zerbey
200 So. 2d 814 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1967)