G. D. GOFF
v.
A. I. JENKINS, DUVAL JEWELRY COMPANY, A CORPORATION; AND DUVAL JEWELRY COMPANY OF TAMPA
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss a bill of complaint, finding the complaint's allegations to be too general and lacking specificity, particularly regarding charges of fraud and deceit.
No, the bill of complaint was insufficient because its allegations were too general and lacked the specificity required for good pleading, especially concerning charges of fraud and deceit.
“We have examined the bill as amended and find it replete with conclusions and allegations which fail to meet the requirements of this Court for good pleading.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the inadequacy of the bill of complaint.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a bill of complaint which was subsequently dismissed by the lower court upon motion. The motion to dismiss raised eighteen grounds…
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 Pleading Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final decree granting a motion to dismiss a bill of complaint. The motion to dismiss contained eighteen grounds but they are all directed to, (1) Insufficiency of the bill, (2) Adequate remedy at law, (3) Laches, and (4) Departure in pleading.
We have examined the bill as amended and find it replete with conclusions and allegations which fail to meet the requirements of this Court for good pleading. The allegations as a whole are so general that it would be very difficult if not impossible to defend against them and the charges of fraud and deceit are not specific and are inconclusive. We express no opinion as' to other questions raised.
For these reasons the judgment below must be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.