Regal Industries, S.A. v. Jonathan Logan, Inc.

354 So. 2d 1219
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 24, 1978·No. No. 76-2017·Published

Opinion

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellants, plaintiffs below, bring this appeal from an order of dismissal with prejudice of Count II of their second amended complaint as to appellee Jonathan Logan, Inc., defendant below, pursuant to its motion to dismiss.

The essence of appellants’ contention on appeal is that the trial court erred by dismissing Count II of appellants’ second amended complaint when it ruled that appellants were improperly pleading inconsistent facts or causes of action. We have carefully reviewed the record and have concluded that Count II of appellants’ second amended complaint did state a cause of action and, therefore, should not have been dismissed. See, e. g., Curran & MacDonell, Inc. v. Pearre, 202 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Hines v. Trager Construction Co., 188 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Ringler v. McVeigh, 109 So.2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959); and Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(g).

Reversed.

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

Regal Industries, S.A. v. Jonathan Logan, Inc., 354 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

354 So. 2d 1219 (Regal Industries, S.A. v. Jonathan Logan, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Curran & MacDonell, Inc. v. Pearre
202 So. 2d 858 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Hines v. Trager Construction Co.
188 So. 2d 826 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Ringler v. McVeigh
109 So. 2d 606 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)