Escambia County v. Stanberry

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Escambia County v. Stanberry

864 So. 2d 575, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 867

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 2, 2004

DocketNos. 1D02-4558, 1D02-4559

StatusPublished

This text of 864 So. 2d 575 (Escambia County v. Stanberry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Escambia County v. Stanberry, 864 So. 2d 575, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 867 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

BARFIELD, J.

We withdraw our opinion filed on November 19, 2003, and substitute the following opinion. We reject the argument of the cross-appellant regarding the applicability of section 768.28, Florida Statutes, to the claims of nuisance and trespass. We find no reversible error except for the trial court’s instruction to the jury regarding real property damages, which we find to have been an incorrect statement of the law which led the jury to a finding that was not supported by the evidence. We therefore REVERSE the $225,000.00 award of damages for “cost of repair or replacement of the damaged property,” and REMAND the case to the trial court for a new trial on this element of damages. In all other respects, the final judgment awarding damages is AFFIRMED.

The award of attorney fees and costs based on section 768.79, Florida Statutes, is VACATED and the trial court is ordered to determine, after a final judgment has been rendered on remand, whether the appellee is entitled to attorney fees.

BENTON, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

BARFIELD, J.

We withdraw our opinion filed on November 19, 2003, and substitute the following opinion. We reject the argument of the cross-appellant regarding the applicability of section 768.28, Florida Statutes, to the claims of nuisance and trespass. We find no reversible error except for the trial court’s instruction to the jury regarding real property damages, which we find to have been an incorrect statement of the law which led the jury to a finding that was not supported by the evidence. We therefore REVERSE the $225,000.00 award of damages for “cost of repair or replacement of the damaged property,” and REMAND the case to the trial court for a new trial on this element of damages. In all other respects, the final judgment awarding damages is AFFIRMED.

The award of attorney fees and costs based on section 768.79, Florida Statutes, is VACATED and the trial court is ordered to determine, after a final judgment has been rendered on remand, whether the appellee is entitled to attorney fees.

BENTON, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

864 So. 2d 575, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escambia-county-v-stanberry-fladistctapp-2004.