CITY OF MAITLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE; ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. CITY OF MAITLAND, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The City of Maitland appealed the dismissal of its complaint challenging Orange County's proposed road widening project. The court held that the city's first two counts stating causes of action based on comprehensive development plan violations and growth management policy violations should not have been dismissed, though the third count alleging arbitrary and capricious action was properly dismissed.
The court held that the first two counts stated viable causes of action and should not have been dismissed, as they alleged that the city's Comprehensive Plan controls over county road construction and that the county was violating its own growth management policy. The third count alleging arbitrary and capricious action was properly dismissed as insufficient but the city should be allowed to replead if it wished.
[1] A court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in a complaint as true when determining if it states a cause of action.
[2] A complaint states a cause of action if there is a basis upon which the court can grant the requested relief, assuming the factual allegations are true.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When considering whether a complaint states a cause of action the court must take all well-pleaded allegations as true and then determine whether there is a basis upon which the court can grant the requested relief.”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Maitland filed a three-count complaint seeking to prevent Orange County from widening a road passing through the city. The city alleged it…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing appellant’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action. When considering whether a complaint states a cause of action the court must take all well-pleaded allegations as true and then determine whether there is a basis upon which the court can grant the requested relief. Ralph v. City of Daytona Beach, 471 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983); Hammonds v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 285 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1973).
The city has alleged in a three count complaint the following. First, the city says it has a Comprehensive Development plan and that the state legislature has enacted a law which prohibits anyone from violating that plan. The city seeks a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent the county from widening a road which passes through the city. If the city is correct in its allegations, a matter we do not determine here, that a city Comprehensive Plan controls over county road construction, then a cause of action has been pleaded. It is up to the appellee to file a proper answer and the case proceed thence forward.
Second, the city alleges the county is attempting to violate its own “Orange County Growth Management Policy” and that in so doing the city will be injured. It seeks the same declaratory and injunctive relief.
The first and second counts of the complaint state a cause of action, so it was error to dismiss them.
In its third count, the city alleges “Arbitrary and Capricious Official Action” and says generally the proposed widening of the street is unlawful, erroneous, an abuse of discretion, and adversely affects city interests. We agree with the trial court that this latter count is insufficient, on its own, to state a cause of action. However, the city should be permitted, if it wishes, to replead this count to state a cause of action, if it can.
The order dismissing the complaint is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHARP, C.J., and GOSHORN, J., concur. ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
The City has sought clarification for our opinion because we failed to address an additional issue which was on appeal. We grant the motion for clarification and affirm the order of the trial court granting attorney fees to the City.
MOTION GRANTED; ORDER AFFIRMED.
SHARP, and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Orla Ralph v. City OF Daytona Beach, 471 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Hammonds v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 285 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1973)