Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. Small

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. Small

514 So. 2d 393, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2409, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10595

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1859

StatusPublished

This text of 514 So. 2d 393 (Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. Small) 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

Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. Small, 514 So. 2d 393, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2409, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10595 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denying appellant’s request for an additional continuance and in permitting the deposition of a witness to be read to the jury, see Collonnades, Inc. v. Vance Baldwin, Inc., 318 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 16 (Fla.1976); see generally Stern v. Four Freedoms Nat’l Medical Serv., Co., 417 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), we affirm. The trial court properly ruled that an involuntary dismissal of appellant’s original complaint was a favorable determination on the merits. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(b). See Union Oil of California Amsco Div. v. Watson, 468 So.2d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 479 So.2d 119 (Fla.1979). Furthermore, the trial court properly denied appellant’s motions for summary judgment and directed verdict. See Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368 (Fla.1979); Telesphere Int’l, Inc. v. Scollin, 489 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Finally, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict. See Landry v. Homstein, 462 So.2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denying appellant’s request for an additional continuance and in permitting the deposition of a witness to be read to the jury, see Collonnades, Inc. v. Vance Baldwin, Inc., 318 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 16 (Fla.1976); see generally Stern v. Four Freedoms Nat’l Medical Serv., Co., 417 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), we affirm. The trial court properly ruled that an involuntary dismissal of appellant’s original complaint was a favorable determination on the merits. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(b). See Union Oil of California Amsco Div. v. Watson, 468 So.2d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 479 So.2d 119 (Fla.1979). Furthermore, the trial court properly denied appellant’s motions for summary judgment and directed verdict. See Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368 (Fla.1979); Telesphere Int’l, Inc. v. Scollin, 489 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Finally, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict. See Landry v. Homstein, 462 So.2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

514 So. 2d 393, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2409, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heritage-corp-of-south-florida-v-small-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack