Case Name: STATE of Florida ex rel. DADE COUNTY OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION, Inc., Appellant, v. FAMILY OPTICAL SERVICE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1968-04-16
Citations: 209 So. 2d 267
Docket Number: No. 67-735
Parties: STATE of Florida ex rel. DADE COUNTY OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION, Inc., Appellant, v. FAMILY OPTICAL SERVICE, Appellee.
Judges: Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 209
Pages: 267–267

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida ex rel. DADE COUNTY OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION, Inc., Appellant, v. FAMILY OPTICAL SERVICE, Appellee.
No. 67-735.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
April 16, 1968.
Rehearing Denied May 8, 1968.
Fred A. Jones, Jr., Miami, for appellant.
David A. Graves, Miami, for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

Opinion:
SWANN, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court which dismissed the plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice.
An examination of the amended complaint reveals that it did not contain sufficient allegations of a nuisance, as defined in Fla.Stat. § 823.05, F.S.A., as to entitle the plaintiff to bring this action pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 64.11, F.S.A. The alleged misleading advertising may not be enjoined as a nuisance by this plaintiff under the facts here alleged. See also Fla.Stat. § 817.46 and 463.19, F.S.A.; Pompano Horse Club v. State, 93 Fla. 415, 111 So. 801, 52 A.L.R. 51 (1927).
Accordingly, the order of dismissal is hereby
Affirmed.