Reed v. Aerothrust Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reed v. Aerothrust Corp.

748 So. 2d 368, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 172, 2000 WL 27548

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 12, 2000

DocketNo. 3D99-1117

StatusPublished

This text of 748 So. 2d 368 (Reed v. Aerothrust Corp.) 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

Reed v. Aerothrust Corp., 748 So. 2d 368, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 172, 2000 WL 27548 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the prior appeal of this cause, we affirmed, among other things, the trial court’s dismissal of the appellant’s civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with prejudice on the grounds that there was no state action alleged. See Reed v. Mims, 711 So.2d 169, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Thereafter, the appellant filed a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the trial court struck and dismissed this action, with prejudice, on the ground that it violated the mandate of our prior Reed decision.

On this appeal, the appellant correctly asserts that this was error because the mandate in the prior appeal did not expressly prohibit him from pursuing a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 which does not require state action. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. In so doing, however, we express no opinion at this time as to the legal sufficiency or propriety of this claim and the appellee is free to file any appropriate motions directed to this claim as it deems appropriate for the trial courts consideration.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the prior appeal of this cause, we affirmed, among other things, the trial court’s dismissal of the appellant’s civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with prejudice on the grounds that there was no state action alleged. See Reed v. Mims, 711 So.2d 169, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Thereafter, the appellant filed a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the trial court struck and dismissed this action, with prejudice, on the ground that it violated the mandate of our prior Reed decision.

On this appeal, the appellant correctly asserts that this was error because the mandate in the prior appeal did not expressly prohibit him from pursuing a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 which does not require state action. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. In so doing, however, we express no opinion at this time as to the legal sufficiency or propriety of this claim and the appellee is free to file any appropriate motions directed to this claim as it deems appropriate for the trial courts consideration.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

748 So. 2d 368, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 172, 2000 WL 27548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-aerothrust-corp-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack