THE MANATEE CHAPTER OF THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, A FLORIDA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE MANATEE COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY ET AL., APPELLEES
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 Izaak Walton League appealed the dismissal with prejudice of its third amended complaint against the Manatee County Port Authority. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the appellant had repeatedly failed to state a cause of action over more than a year of litigation and that further proceedings would be futile.
The court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice, finding that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that the order appealed must inevitably be affirmed. The motion to quash the appeal as frivolous was denied but the appeal was affirmed on the authority that further litigation would be futile.
[1] A court may affirm a dismissal order when it clearly appears that the judgment rendered must inevitably be affirmed upon final review.
[2] Litigation may cease when a party has filed multiple complaints that each fail to state a cause of action.
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“There comes a time when litigation must cease.”
The court's statement of principle justifying affirmance despite not formally quashing the appeal as frivolous.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Port Authority took the challenged actions on August 12, 1976. The appellant filed four separate complaints over approximately two years challengi…
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 Failure To State A Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the second appearance of this case in this court wherein the appellant appeals the dismissal of its complaint. The first complaint was filed on April 15, 1977. Thereafter, an amended complaint was filed which was dismissed with leave to amend. An interlocutory appeal was then taken and affirmed by this court per curiam. Our mandate issued on January 31, 1978.
Thereafter a second amended complaint was filed and dismissed with leave to amend. Appellant then filed its third amended complaint which was dismissed with prejudice, and dismissal with prejudice being the subject matter of this appeal.
The actions of the appellee, Manatee County Port Authority, which have been challenged in the courts for over one and one-half years were taken by the Port Authority on August 12, 1976, approximately two years and four months ago.
There comes a time when litigation must cease. The appellant has filed four complaints in this matter, and the trial court held that each one of them failed to state a cause of action against the Port Authority. The dismissal of one of these complaints was affirmed by this court. Manatee Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. v. Manatee County, 354 So. 2d 993 (Fla.2d DCA 1978).
We have carefully examined the prior record before this court and the record in the instant appeal and, while we hesitate to quash or dismiss on the grounds of frivolity, it has been held in National Surety Corporation v. Sholtz, 123 Fla. 110, 166 So. 213 (1936):
“While the writ of error is by no means frivolous as is contended, we see no good reason for further prolonging this litigation by retaining the case on our docket when it so clearly appears that the judgment rendered must inevitably be affirmed when the case is finally reached in due course.” 166 So. at 214.
From the record in this case, a meticulous study of the third amended complaint, and the applicable law, it clearly appears that the order appealed must inevitably be affirmed when the case is finally reached in due course.
Therefore, the motion to dismiss or quash as frivolous is denied, but the order appealed is affirmed on the authority of National Surety Corporation v. Sholtz, supra.
GRIMES, C. J„ and HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.