Farah v. Heritage Paper Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Farah v. Heritage Paper Co.

392 So. 2d 984, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19328

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1981

DocketNo. SS-230

StatusPublished

This text of 392 So. 2d 984 (Farah v. Heritage Paper Co.) 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

Farah v. Heritage Paper Co., 392 So. 2d 984, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19328 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

A claim and counterclaim, the defeat of which produced this appeal and cross-appeal, arose among former business associates in the aftermath of dissolving their relationship. After a bench trial the court rejected both claims on the merits. Substantial competent evidence supports the circuit court’s judgment. With particular reference to the counterclaim of appellee Heritage for damages allegedly sustained when appellants resigned their employment and entered a competing business, the trial court’s judgment for counterclaim defendants is sustainable either on the ground that there was no satisfactory showing of a cause of action — appellants ceased all activities as directors of appellee Heritage and briefly remained directors in name only after opening a competing business — or on the ground that Heritage’s damages were for the most part avoidable. The presumption of correctness which attends the trial court’s judgment on both claim and counterclaim has not been overcome.

AFFIRMED.

SHAW, J., concurs. BOOTH, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, by separate opinion.

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

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

A claim and counterclaim, the defeat of which produced this appeal and cross-appeal, arose among former business associates in the aftermath of dissolving their relationship. After a bench trial the court rejected both claims on the merits. Substantial competent evidence supports the circuit court’s judgment. With particular reference to the counterclaim of appellee Heritage for damages allegedly sustained when appellants resigned their employment and entered a competing business, the trial court’s judgment for counterclaim defendants is sustainable either on the ground that there was no satisfactory showing of a cause of action — appellants ceased all activities as directors of appellee Heritage and briefly remained directors in name only after opening a competing business — or on the ground that Heritage’s damages were for the most part avoidable. The presumption of correctness which attends the trial court’s judgment on both claim and counterclaim has not been overcome.

AFFIRMED.

SHAW, J., concurs. BOOTH, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, by separate opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 So. 2d 984, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farah-v-heritage-paper-co-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack