Sparber, Shevin, Shapo & Heilbronner, P.A. v. Kirsch

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sparber, Shevin, Shapo & Heilbronner, P.A. v. Kirsch

516 So. 2d 91, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2745, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11437, 1987 WL 2298

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 8, 1987

DocketNo. 87-404

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 516 So. 2d 91 (Sparber, Shevin, Shapo & Heilbronner, P.A. v. Kirsch) 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

Sparber, Shevin, Shapo & Heilbronner, P.A. v. Kirsch, 516 So. 2d 91, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2745, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11437, 1987 WL 2298 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing with prejudice the original complaint against the individual defendants, Kirsch and Kunen, for failure to state a cause of action against them individually. We hold that where the plaintiff had not previously amended its complaint and it did not clearly appear that a cause of action could not be alleged against the individual defendants the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. See Sidener v. Jones, 455 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Affordable Homes, Inc. v. Devil’s Run, Ltd., 408 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Hansen v. Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 348 So.2d 608, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Accordingly, the order of dismissal with prejudice is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing with prejudice the original complaint against the individual defendants, Kirsch and Kunen, for failure to state a cause of action against them individually. We hold that where the plaintiff had not previously amended its complaint and it did not clearly appear that a cause of action could not be alleged against the individual defendants the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. See Sidener v. Jones, 455 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Affordable Homes, Inc. v. Devil’s Run, Ltd., 408 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Hansen v. Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 348 So.2d 608, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Accordingly, the order of dismissal with prejudice is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 So. 2d 91, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2745, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11437, 1987 WL 2298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparber-shevin-shapo-heilbronner-pa-v-kirsch-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack