Ruhl v. Campbell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ruhl v. Campbell

182 So. 2d 48, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5862

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 18, 1966

DocketNo. 65-470

StatusPublished

This text of 182 So. 2d 48 (Ruhl v. Campbell) 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

Ruhl v. Campbell, 182 So. 2d 48, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5862 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question presented on this appeal by plaintiff from an order of dismissal is whether a cause of action was stated. The initial complaint and two subsequent amended complaints were dismissed, on motion of defendant, on the ground that they failed to state facts upon which relief could be granted. The action was one for damages for alleged inducement of breach of con[49]*49tract. Without attempting recitation of the allegations, we deem it sufficient to state that in our view the trial judge was eminently correct in dismissing the second amended complaint. No contract' was shown other than an employment of unfixed and indefinite duration. It was not alleged that defendant had knowledge of the contract, if one existed. The acts attributed to the defendant were not shown to have proximately caused the loss or injury complained of. Accordingly the order appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The question presented on this appeal by plaintiff from an order of dismissal is whether a cause of action was stated. The initial complaint and two subsequent amended complaints were dismissed, on motion of defendant, on the ground that they failed to state facts upon which relief could be granted. The action was one for damages for alleged inducement of breach of con[49]*49tract. Without attempting recitation of the allegations, we deem it sufficient to state that in our view the trial judge was eminently correct in dismissing the second amended complaint. No contract' was shown other than an employment of unfixed and indefinite duration. It was not alleged that defendant had knowledge of the contract, if one existed. The acts attributed to the defendant were not shown to have proximately caused the loss or injury complained of. Accordingly the order appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 So. 2d 48, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruhl-v-campbell-fladistctapp-1966.