Gutierrez v. Shaffer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gutierrez v. Shaffer

490 So. 2d 1299, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1417

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 24, 1986

DocketNos. 85-1950, 85-1778

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 490 So. 2d 1299 (Gutierrez v. Shaffer) 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

Gutierrez v. Shaffer, 490 So. 2d 1299, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1417 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Manuel Gutierrez appeals a final judgment entered following a jury verdict. The judgment rendered Gutierrez liable for compensatory and punitive damages and Fotographics Gutierrez Corporation liable for compensatory damages to Ralph L. Shaffer and Colorgraphics Photoengravers, Inc., [Colorgraphics] based on allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and conspiracy to convert Colorgraphics’ property. Finding that any losses sustained were suffered by the corporation and that no separate or distinct injury occurred to Shaffer individually, we direct the trial court to modify the final judgment by deleting Shaffer’s name and entering judgment solely in the name of Colorgraphics. Alario v. Miller, 354 So.2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Fried v. Easton, 293 So.2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).

We find no error in the trial court’s denial of Gutierrez’s motion for a directed verdict, see generally Ligman v. Tardiff, 466 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); City of Hialeah v. Rehm, 455 So.2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied, 462 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1985); Mangel v. City National Bank of Miami, 451 So.2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), or in the jury verdict, which the record reveals to be supported by sufficient competent evidence. Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 349 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 1977).

Affirmed as modified.

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

PER CURIAM.

Manuel Gutierrez appeals a final judgment entered following a jury verdict. The judgment rendered Gutierrez liable for compensatory and punitive damages and Fotographics Gutierrez Corporation liable for compensatory damages to Ralph L. Shaffer and Colorgraphics Photoengravers, Inc., [Colorgraphics] based on allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and conspiracy to convert Colorgraphics’ property. Finding that any losses sustained were suffered by the corporation and that no separate or distinct injury occurred to Shaffer individually, we direct the trial court to modify the final judgment by deleting Shaffer’s name and entering judgment solely in the name of Colorgraphics. Alario v. Miller, 354 So.2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Fried v. Easton, 293 So.2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).

We find no error in the trial court’s denial of Gutierrez’s motion for a directed verdict, see generally Ligman v. Tardiff, 466 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); City of Hialeah v. Rehm, 455 So.2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied, 462 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1985); Mangel v. City National Bank of Miami, 451 So.2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), or in the jury verdict, which the record reveals to be supported by sufficient competent evidence. Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 349 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 1977).

Affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 So. 2d 1299, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gutierrez-v-shaffer-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack