Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

184 So. 2d 205

Margolis v. Klein

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 1, 1966

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1966-03-01

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"The defendant, Dorothy C. Margolis, by this interlocutory appeal, seeks to review that portion of an order dismissing her counter and cross claim. The defendants urged that the trial court erred in failing to permit leave to amend the counter and cross claim. However, we fail to find any application to the trial court in the record to allow such an amendment. "It is elementary that before a trial judge will be held in error, he must be presented with an opportunity to rule on the matter before him... ." Id. at 206 .”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Moss v. Moss, 307 So. 2d 189 - Florida P. & L. Co. v. System Coun., Int. Bro. of Elec. W.

Relies on Paul v. Kanter · Wasserburg v. Coastal Aluminum Products Const. Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1966-03-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 2006

9 state decisions

4019661970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Dorothy C. MARGOLIS, Appellant,
v.
Alexander S. KLEIN, Jr., Allan B. Margolls, Joseph Liedman, Benjamin Schwartz, Consolidated Communications Corporation, a Florida Corporation, and Community Service Broadcasters, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, Appellees.

No. 65-1038.

¶1District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 1, 1966.
Rehearing Denied April 5, 1966.

¶2*206 Garland M. Budd and Henry G. Simmonite, Miami, for appellant.

¶3Carr & Warren, Joseph Pardo, Paul & Sams, Miami, for appellees.

¶4Before BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ., and GOODING, MARION W., Associate Judge.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6The defendant, Dorothy C. Margolis, by this interlocutory appeal, seeks to review that portion of an order dismissing her counter and cross claim. The defendants urged that the trial court erred in failing to permit leave to amend the counter and cross claim. However, we fail to find any application to the trial court in the record to allow such an amendment.

¶7It is elementary that before a trial judge will be held in error, he must be presented with an opportunity to rule on the matter before him. Wasserburg v. Coastal Aluminum Products Const. Co., Fla.App. 1964, 167 So.2d 889; Paul v. Kanter, Fla. App. 1963, 155 So.2d 402. This is clearly contemplated by Rule 1.15(a) Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. Therefore, although the counter and cross claim might have been amendable without any application to the trial judge, we are not in a position to hold that error was committed in this regard.

¶8Affirmed.

/184/so2d/205 · .json · Public domain