Marans v. Stang, No. 59-453
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | HORTON |
| Citation | 124 So.2d 891 |
| Parties | Frances MARANS, Appellant, v. I. Frederick STANG, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 05 December 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 59-453 |
Page 891
v.
I. Frederick STANG, Appellee.
Sams, Anderson, Alper, Meadows & Spencer, Miami, for appellant.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray and Otis B. Radebaugh, Jr., Miami, for appellee.
HORTON, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a malpractice case rendered adverse to the appellant.
In an amended complaint filed pursuant to leave of court, the appellant charged the appellee with failing to exercise the ordinary care and degree of care and skill ordinarily and generally exercised by dentists in this vicinity in like cases and negligently performing certain dental work and treatment which resulted in injuries to the appellant. Thereafter followed, in separate subparagraphs of the complaint, various charges of negligence and unskillful and careless actions on the part of the appellee in performing dental work for the appellant. Subparagraph (f) of paragraph III of the amended complaint in substance charged the appellee with wrongfully, maliciously and unlawfully removing teeth from her mouth for the purpose of exacting from the appellant the balance of the fee which the appellee claimed was due him and keeping the teeth for a period of hours, after which, it was charged, the appellee replaced them in the appellant's mouth at her home. There followed, in a separate numbered paragraph, the charge that as a proximate result of the alleged negligent, unskillful, wrongful, unlawful
Page 892
and malicious conduct of the appellee, injury and damage resulted to the appellantThe depositions of the appellant as well as the appellee, together with those of other dentists and a technician, the answers to interrogatories and requests for admissions were all presented to the trial judge on the motion for summary judgment and he concluded at that time that there was no genuine issue of material fact, and the appellee was entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the order appealed was entered
After the entry of the summary judgment, the appellant filed a petition for clarification and motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Upon the hearing of these motions, the trial judge denied the petition for clarification and the request for leave to file further amended pleadings upon the ground that he was without jurisdiction to consider further amendments to the pleadings. In this we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, Inc., No. 41546
...postjudgment motions and their effect on timeliness of appeals, see In re Estate of Lee, 90 So.2d 290 (Fla.1956); Marans v. Stang, 124 So.2d 891 (Fla.App.3rd, 1960); Mathis v. Butler, 128 So.2d 142 (Fla.App.2d 1961); and Pitts v. State, 225 So.2d 352 (Fla.App.1st, 1 Rule 1.530(a): 'Jury and......
-
Mackin v. Applestein, Nos. 80-786
...325 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 206 So.2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Marans v. Stang, 124 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA It is appropriate to add, however, that neither this opinion nor any other factor is an impediment to now amending the fourth ame......
-
Floyd v. State ex rel. LaVigne Elec. Co., No. 31376
...that 'a trial judge may not grant a petition for rehearing addressed to a summary final judgment. Cf. Morans v. Stang, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 891.' True, the case mentioned bears the statement that the court was unaware of any provision in the rules or other basis for consideration of a mo......
-
Brickell Place Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. American Design & Development Corp. of Miami, No. 84-2256
...to consider the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. See Mackin v. Applestein, 404 So.2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Marans v. Stang, 124 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Accordingly, the trial court's order denying the plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint, being eminently correct, Affi......
-
Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, Inc., No. 41546
...postjudgment motions and their effect on timeliness of appeals, see In re Estate of Lee, 90 So.2d 290 (Fla.1956); Marans v. Stang, 124 So.2d 891 (Fla.App.3rd, 1960); Mathis v. Butler, 128 So.2d 142 (Fla.App.2d 1961); and Pitts v. State, 225 So.2d 352 (Fla.App.1st, 1 Rule 1.530(a): 'Jury and......
-
Mackin v. Applestein, Nos. 80-786
...325 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 206 So.2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Marans v. Stang, 124 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA It is appropriate to add, however, that neither this opinion nor any other factor is an impediment to now amending the fourth ame......
-
Floyd v. State ex rel. LaVigne Elec. Co., No. 31376
...that 'a trial judge may not grant a petition for rehearing addressed to a summary final judgment. Cf. Morans v. Stang, Fla.App.1960, 124 So.2d 891.' True, the case mentioned bears the statement that the court was unaware of any provision in the rules or other basis for consideration of a mo......
-
Brickell Place Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. American Design & Development Corp. of Miami, No. 84-2256
...to consider the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. See Mackin v. Applestein, 404 So.2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Marans v. Stang, 124 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Accordingly, the trial court's order denying the plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint, being eminently correct, Affi......