509 So. 2d 1298 - Armstrong v. Data Processing Inst., Inc.

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2019

1 district · 5 state decisions

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.

¶1 *1299 Dale G. Westling, Sr. of Hould & Westling, Jacksonville, for appellants.

¶2James F. Valenti, Jr. of Mahoney, Adams, Milam, Surface & Grimsley, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellee.

¶3SMITH, Chief Judge.

¶4Appellants appeal the dismissal with prejudice of count III of their amended complaint. Regardless of the nomenclature, the gravamen of count III is a cause of action for educational malpractice which is not cognizable in Florida. Tubell v. Dade County Public Schools,419 So.2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see also Donohue v. Copiague Union Free School District,47 N.Y.2d 440, 418 N.Y.S.2d 375, 391 N.E.2d 1352 (1979). Accordingly, we affirm the action of the trial court. In so doing, we express no view as to the propriety of other causes of actions which appellants might conceivably have been attempting to allege in their complaint since appellants neither raised nor briefed in this court any contention other than that they should be permitted to proceed on their claim of educational malpractice. See Miami v. Steckloff,111 So.2d 446 (Fla. 1959).

¶5AFFIRMED.

¶6BOOTH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.