Hanson-Murphy, Inc. v. First Federal Savings & Loan
Opinion
Because it is obvious that at least some damages were sustained in that county, we agree with the trial court that this claim for malicious prosecution of a civil action accrued for venue purposes in Orange County where that action was filed, see §§ 47.011, 47.051, Fla. Stat. (1995)1; 92 C.J.S. Venue § 19 n. 35 (1955); 77 Am.Jur.2d Venue § 39 (1997); see Soowal v. Marden, 452 So.2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); E.J. Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Southeast First Nat’l Bank, 415 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see generally Kumar v. Embassy Kosher Tours, Inc., 696 So.2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Tucker v. Fianson, 484 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 494 So.2d 1153 (Fla.1986), even though other injuries may have been subsequently [1379]*1379incurred in Dade County where the present plaintiffs, then-defendants, reside. See Gaboury v. Flagler Hosp., Inc., 316 So.2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Since none of the present defendants, then-plaintiffs, reside in Dade County, there is no basis for fixing venue here. The order under review transferring the instant case to Orange County is therefore
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
698 So. 2d 1378 (Hanson-Murphy, Inc. v. First Federal Savings & Loan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.