Spradley v. Kemp

596 So. 2d 506, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3915, 1992 WL 59723
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 31, 1992·No. No. 91-3068·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order which dismissed appellant’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action. We reverse.

Appellant filed a complaint alleging a violation of his civil rights based upon the [507]*507actions of various Department of Corrections’ employees. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. We have reviewed appellant’s brief and the record. Unfortunately, the appel-lees affirmatively chose not to file a brief.1 Admittedly, appellees are not required to file a brief, Board of Optometry v. Florida Society of Ophthalmology, 538 So.2d 878, 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); however, the better practice is to file a brief or a confession of error. Lakes of Emerald Hills v. Silverman, 558 So.2d 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In our opinion the complaint states a cause of action. Ultimately appellant may not prevail, but it was error to dismiss the complaint.2

Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

JOANOS, C.J., and ERVIN and MINER, JJ., concur.

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

Spradley v. Kemp, 596 So. 2d 506, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 3915, 1992 WL 59723 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

596 So. 2d 506 (Spradley v. Kemp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State, Bd. of Optometry v. FLA. SOC. OF OPHTH.
538 So. 2d 878 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Lakes of Emerald Hills v. Silverman
558 So. 2d 442 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)