Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1956). · Go Syfert
Search
Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1956). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
102 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rhonda Lynn Blanton, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Linda Eulee Daughtry v. Arbor Facility, Inc., Apex Global Solutions, LLC, Vintage Healthcare, LLC, Michael Bleich, Dwayne Graham, Millennial Healthcare Services, LLC, Old Wire Road Care, Inc., Florida Care FL, Inc., and Premier Clinical Solutions, Inc., N/K/A Kings Health Management, Inc. (fladistctapp, 2025-08-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1956 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1956 1991 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rhonda Lynn Blanton, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Linda Eulee Daughtry v. Arbor Facility, Inc., Apex Global Solutions, LLC, Vintage Healthcare, LLC, Michael Bleich, Dwayne Graham, Millennial Healthcare Services, LLC, Old Wire Road Care, Inc., Florida Care FL, Inc., and Premier Clinical Solutions, Inc., N/K/A Kings Health Management, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
A. “The purpose of a complaint is to advise the Court and the defendant of the nature of a cause of action asserted by the plaintiff.” Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So. 2d 482, 484 (Fla. 1956).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gator Boring & Trenching, Inc. v. Westra Construction Corp.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1956).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rhea v. District Board of Trustees
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Latam Investments, LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
“The function of a motion to dismiss a complaint is to raise as a question of law the sufficiency of the facts alleged to state a cause of action.” Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1956) (emphasis in original).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Law-Yue v. Miami River, L.L.C. (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
For the purpose of passing upon a motion to dismiss the Court must assume all facts alleged in the complaint to be true.” Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1956).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Walker v. Midland Mortgage Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carnes v. Fender
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
For purposes of a motion for summary judgment, "it should be assumed that every fact as to which the party moved against has any appreciable evidence may at a trial be established to the satisfaction of a jury." Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1956) (emphasis added).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Elmore v. Florida Power & Light Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
When confronted with a motion to dismiss, the court must take the allegations of the complaint as true and decide only questions of law, Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1956).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fogel v. Staples the Office Superstore, Inc.
unknown court · 1998 · confidence medium
Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1956).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chiang v. Wildcat Groves, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Against this backdrop, we begin our resolution of this case by adhering to the fundamental principle that “[t]he function of a motion to dismiss a complaint is to raise as a question of law the sufficiency of the facts alleged to state a cause of action.” Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1956) (emphasis in original).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Laganella v. BOCA GROVE GOLF AND TENNIS
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
"For the purpose of passing upon a motion to dismiss the Court must assume all facts alleged in the complaint to be true." Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla. 1956); see also Health Application Sys., Inc. v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alfino v. HRS
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973). [2] Prosser at 821. [3] Prosser at 821. [4] Harper and James on Torts, Vol. 11 at 196. [5] Pate v. Threlkel, 661 So.2d 278, 280 (Fla.1995); Connolly v. Sebeco, 89 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1956); Hernandez v. Amisub, 659 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). [6] Prosser at 825; Harper and James at 196. [7] Harper and James at 198; Prosser at 825. [8] Fla.R.App.P.9.030(a)(2)(A)(v).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pate v. Threlkel
Fla. · 1995 · confidence medium
Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla. 1956); Aaron v. Allstate Ins.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v. Lewis Marine Supply, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1978 · confidence medium
White v. Fletcher, 90 So.2d 129, 131-32 (Fla.1956); Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1956); Meigs v. Lear, 191 So.2d 286, 288-89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(a), (b).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Graff v. McNeil
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1975 · confidence medium
Edgewater Drugs, Inc. v. Jax Drugs, Inc., 138 So.2d 525, 528-29 (Fla.App. 1st, 1962); Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482, 483 (Fla. 1956); Soper v. Stein, 184 So.2d 892 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1966).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beikirch v. City of Jacksonville Beach
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1964 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla. 1956). [2] Faulk v. Parrish, 58 So.2d 523, 526 (Fla. 1952); See also Towle v. Greyhound Corporation, 132 So.2d 798 (Fla.App.1st, 1961). [3] Andrews v. Goetz, 104 So.2d 653 (Fla. App.1st, 1958).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Patty
Fla. · 1959 · confidence medium
We must determine whether the cited decision comes into conflict on the same point of law with prior decisions of this court illustrated by Carls Markets, Inc. v. Meyer, Fla. 1953, 69 So.2d 789 , and Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., Fla. 1956, 89 So.2d 482 .
cited Cited "see" Meyers v. City of Jacksonville
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connolly v. Sebeco, 89 So.2d 482 (Fla.1956).
cited Cited "see" Messett v. Cohen
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482 (Fla.1956).
cited Cited "see" Koehler v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482 (Fla.1956).
discussed Cited "see" Boynton v. Burglass
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connolly v. Sebeco, 89 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1956). [6] For an overview of decisions from other jurisdictions that have addressed Tarasoff, see generally Annotation, Liability of One Treating Mentally Afflicted Patient for Failure to Warn or Protect Third Persons Threatened by Patient, 83 A.L.R.3d 1201 (1978 & Supp. 1990). [7] In Tarasoff , the California Supreme Court held that "[w]hen a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protec…
cited Cited "see" Bill Branch Chev., Inc. v. Philip L. Burnett, Pa
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1956).
cited Cited "see" Schatten v. CIT Corporation
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., Fla. 1956, 89 So.2d 482 ; Harvey Building, Inc. v. Haley, Fla. 1965, 175 So.2d 780 .
cited Cited "see" Scanlon v. Litt
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1965 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 482 ; Crovella v. Cochrane, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 307 and Holl v. Talcott, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 412 .
cited Cited "see" Woollerton v. Burnham
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1961 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 482 , and Roth v. Flom, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 179 .
discussed Cited "see" Ideal Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Katzentine
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1961 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., Fla., 89 So.2d 482 , and Stone v. Stone, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 352 .” In testing the sufficiency of the amended complaint on the hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss, the trial court was required to consider as true those allegations that were well pleaded, and determine if a cause of action under applicable principles of law existed.
cited Cited "see" Wiley v. Dow
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1958 · signal: see · confidence high
See Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., Fla., 89 So.2d 482 , and Stone v. Stone, Fla.App. 1957, 97 So.2d 352 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." JSL Const. Co. v. Levy
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1956).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pro-Art Dental Lab, Inc. v. V-Strategic Group, LLC
Fla. · 2008 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla.1956) ("The purpose of a complaint is to advise the Court and the defendant of the nature of a cause of action asserted by the plaintiff."); Parker v. Panama City, 151 So.2d 469, 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963) ("[T]he function of the complaint is to accurately inform the defendant and the court of the nature of plaintiff's claim. ...
cited Cited "see, e.g." McCaghren v. Cribb
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482 (Fla.1966); Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, 159 So.2d 236 (Fla.1964).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Fearick v. Smugglers Cove, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1980 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1956).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Mintzer v. Dade Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Miami
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1968 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 482 ; Engl v. Aetna Life Ins.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James J. CONNOLLY, Appellant,
v.
SEBECO, INC., a New York corporation, C. Thomas Shinn, Jr., d/b/a Shinn Construction Co., and Tropicana Motel, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sep 12, 1956.
89 So. 2d 482
Taylor.
Cited by 91 opinions  |  Published

[*483] Russell C. Gay and Matthew M. Slepin, Miami, for appellant.

Wicker & Smith, Miami, for Sebeco, Inc., and Tropicana Motel, Inc.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for C. Thomas Shinn, Jr., d/b/a Shinn Const. Co., appellees.

TAYLOR, Associate Justice.

Plaintiff below, a motel guest, in going from his room to the nearby beach used a flight of stairs the lowest of which was some thirty or forty inches from the beach. The condition of the stairs was the result of construction work in connection with certain changes being made in the premises. Plaintiff negotiated the stairs safely in going to the beach, but in returning to his room he attempted to amount the stairs, his foot slipped and he fell and received injuries.

He sued the owner of the motel, the operator of the motel and the contractor[*484] performing the construction work. Each defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and each such motion was denied.

After answers were filed, in which contributory negligence was pled, depositions were taken, affidavits filed and each defendant moved for a summary judgment. These motions were granted and the plaintiff appealed.

Counsel appear to have misconstrued or misunderstood the rules and decisions applicable to the situation presented by the record in this case. To the end that further unnecessary appeals may be avoided we state briefly the following principles applicable to cases of this nature.

The purpose of a complaint is to advise the Court and the defendant of the nature of a cause of action asserted by the plaintiff. The function of a motion to dismiss a complaint is to raise as a question of law the sufficiency of the facts alleged to state a cause of action. For the purpose of passing upon a motion to dismiss the Court must assume all facts alleged in the complaint to be true. Consequently a motion to dismiss a complaint must be decided on questions of law and questions of law only.

On the other hand a motion for summary judgment, in a case of this sort, raises only questions of fact and must be decided upon evidence and not pleadings.

The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to ascertain if the plaintiff has alleged a good cause of action. The purpose of a motion for summary judgment is to determine if there be sufficient evidence to justify a trial upon the issues made by the pleadings. They thus serve entirely different functions.

It frequently happens that a party may plead a good cause of action but have no evidence to sustain the allegations of the pleadings.

On a motion for summary judgment the Court should not be asked to substitute itself for a jury and try controverted issues of fact. For the purpose of such a motion it should be assumed that every fact as to which the party moved against has any appreciable evidence may at a trial be established to the satisfaction of a jury. But if the party moved against has admitted facts which preclude him ever obtaining a judgment, or is without evidence to support a fact which he must establish to succeed, or, in the face of substantial evidence by his opponent, is without evidence to rebut a fact established by his opponent's evidence which, if true, precludes a judgment in his favor, then there is no necessity for a trial and a summary judgment is proper.

Much of the briefs filed in this case revolve around controverted issues of fact as to which there is some evidence on both sides. As to these issues a summary judgment would be entirely improper.

But each of the defendants has plead contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's own testimony, given in answers to interrogatories discloses that he knew the condition of the stairs in question. The defect complained of was obvious. If it were negligence to maintain the stairs in this condition (a question not decided) it was negligence to attempt to use them in that condition with knowledge of that condition. On the other hand if the condition of the stairs was such that a reasonable and prudent person having knowledge of the conditions would use them, and would not be guilty of negligence in so doing, then there was no negligence in maintaining them in such condition. The plaintiff is obviously on the horns of a dilemma — either there was no negligence in maintaining the stairs or he was guilty of contributory negligence in using them.

Under these circumstances the plaintiff, by his own testimony, discloses that he[*485] cannot succeed in his quest for damages. The case was properly disposed of by granting a summary judgment for each defendant.

Affirmed.

DREW, C.J., and TERRELL and THORNAL, JJ., concur.