Lanzo Construction Co. v. Orange County

Florida District Courts of Appeal
Lanzo Construction Co. v. Orange County, 546 So. 2d 432 (1989)
14 Fla. L. Weekly 1384; 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3223; 1989 WL 73900
Daniel, Goshorn, Sharp

Lanzo Construction Co. v. Orange County

Opinion of the Court

GOSHORN, Judge.

Lanzo Construction Company appeals the dismissal with prejudice of its third amended complaint against both Orange County, Florida and Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. The function of a motion to dismiss is to raise a question of law concerning the sufficiency of the alleged facts to state a cause of action. Because the motion serves only to test the sufficiency of the pleadings it must be decided on questions of law only and thus all material facts properly pleaded are admitted as true. See e.g. Crompton v. Kirkland, 24 So.2d 902, 904 (Fla. 1946); Temples v. Florida Industrial Construction Co., Inc., 310 So.2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); O’Neal v. Crumpton Builders Inc., 143 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). Since each of the eleven counts contains sufficient allegations to state a cause of action, we reverse.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and DANIEL, J., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name
LANZO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Florida v. ORANGE COUNTY, Florida and Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc.
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published