Hand v. Hustad

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hand v. Hustad

440 So. 2d 518, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24102

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 16, 1983

DocketNo. 83-8

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 440 So. 2d 518 (Hand v. Hustad) 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

Hand v. Hustad, 440 So. 2d 518, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24102 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal challenges the propriety of a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in a legal malpractice case. The issue is whether the plaintiff adduced sufficient proof as to the collectibility of a lien to withstand the defendant’s motion for directed verdict. We resolve this question by employing the general rule that “[w]hen a judgment based on a directed verdict is appealed, this court must read the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict is directed, resolving every conflict and inference for that party.” McDonald v. McGowan, 402 So.2d 1197, 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Here the record reflects that the plaintiff offered closing statements and other documentary evidence which, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, were sufficient to establish the collectibility of the lien. Thus, we hold that the trial court erred in granting the motion for a directed verdict and, accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

REVERSED & REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., and SMITH, CHARLES E., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal challenges the propriety of a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in a legal malpractice case. The issue is whether the plaintiff adduced sufficient proof as to the collectibility of a lien to withstand the defendant’s motion for directed verdict. We resolve this question by employing the general rule that “[w]hen a judgment based on a directed verdict is appealed, this court must read the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict is directed, resolving every conflict and inference for that party.” McDonald v. McGowan, 402 So.2d 1197, 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Here the record reflects that the plaintiff offered closing statements and other documentary evidence which, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, were sufficient to establish the collectibility of the lien. Thus, we hold that the trial court erred in granting the motion for a directed verdict and, accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

REVERSED & REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., and SMITH, CHARLES E., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

440 So. 2d 518, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hand-v-hustad-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack