Opinion

Pearson v. Porter, Brown, Chitty & Pirkle, M.D., P.A.

862 So. 2d 735
2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15068
2003 WL 22298985

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Filed: Oct 8, 2003
Status: Published
On the bench: Fletcher, Gersten, Green
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 0.9%

The opinion

PER CURIAM.

As this court has previously held that appellant’s complaint failed to state a cause of action under Chapter 395, the anti-dumping statute (see Porter, Brown, *736 Chitty & Pirkle, M.D., P.A. v. Pearson, 793 So.2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)), the trial court did not have discretion to permit the appellant to amend his complaint on remand. See Dober v. Worrell, 401 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Fla.1981)(“[A] procedure which allows an appellate court to rule on the merits of a trial court judgment and then permits the losing party to amend his initial pleadings to assert matters not previously raised renders a mockery of the ‘finality’ concept in our system of justice.”). We therefore affirm.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.