State Road Dept. v. Brill
| Decision Date | 12 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. G-16,G-16 |
| Citation | 171 So.2d 229 |
| Parties | STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT of Florida, an agency of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Clinton B. F. BRILL, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
P. A. Pacyna, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert L. Parks, of Law Office of A. E. Quinton, Jr., Miami, and Martin S. Michelson, Hartford, Conn., for appellee.
By this interlocutory appeal the appellant, State Road Department, seeks review of an order entered by the trial court in an action at law denying appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint filed against it herein, which motion is predicated upon several grounds including the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and the subject matter of the cause .
In its order denying appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint it is recited that by its motion the Road Department attacks the jurisdiction of the court to entertain an action against a state agency without legislative authority. The order also contains a recital to the effect that the motion to dismiss the complaint raises other questions, but at the hearing it was agreed by all parties that any defects in the complaint as a pleading should be more properly attacked by motion for a more definite statement, and that the motion to dismiss should be restricted to the jurisdictional question. The remainder of the order summarizes the allegations of the complaint under which plaintiff purports to state a cause of action for breach of contract by defendant Road Department, and the provisions of the statutory and decisional law of this state bearing upon causes of action of the type involved in this proceeding. The entire burden of the order deals with the question of whether the defendant Road Department is free from liability because of the protection afforded by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Road Department's attack upon the cause of action alleged in the complaint is confined exclusively to its asserted defense of sovereign immunity, and includes no defense to the merits of the action.
By its brief filed on this appeal the Road Department presents two points for our consideration, each of which relates exclusively to the question of whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity shields the State Road Department from liability for the damages claimed by plaintiff. Such a defense relates solely to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the cause, and has no relationship to any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Insinga v. LaBella
...immunity is a "defense that relates solely to the jurisdiction of the court," not the merits of the case. State Road Department v. Brill, 171 So.2d 229, 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Under these circumstances, we hold that the voluntary-involuntary rule does not apply and that the case was prope......
-
Warren v. Southeastern Leisure Systems, Inc.
...the unsatisfied execution and an affidavit by its president stating the judgment remained unsatisfied.)2 See also State Road Dept. v. Brill, 171 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964) (order denying dismissal of suit as barred by sovereign immunity nonappealable non-final order) and Dyer v. Battle, ......
-
Circuit Court of Twelfth Judicial Circuit v. Department of Natural Resources, 47873
...an interlocutory appeal to the District Court of Appeal, Second District, which was dismissed on the authority of State Road Dept. v. Brill, 171 So.2d 229 (Fla.1st DCA 1964). The Department then filed a suggestion for a writ of prohibition with the District Court of Appeal. That court issue......
-
Department of Natural Resources v. Circuit Court of Twelfth Judicial Circuit, 74-1389
...from the denial of its motion to dismiss, which interlocutory appeal was dismissed by this court on authority of State Road Department v. Brill, Fla.App.1st 1964, 171 So.2d 229. whereupon relator filed this original application for writ of prohibition. While the respondents do not question ......