Johnson v. Kannwischer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Johnson v. Kannwischer

477 So. 2d 1011, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1731, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15449

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 16, 1985

DocketNo. BF-311

StatusPublished

This text of 477 So. 2d 1011 (Johnson v. Kannwischer) 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

Johnson v. Kannwischer, 477 So. 2d 1011, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1731, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15449 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us by petition for a writ of common-law certiorari. Petitioners contend that the denial of their demand for a jury trial as untimely was a departure from the essential requirements of law. We agree.

Respondents’ answer to petitioners’ third amended counterclaim and respondents’ reply to petitioners’ fifth and sixth affirmative defenses, which were served on November 26, 1984, incorporated by reference Count III for money damages,¹ a legal issue contained in the earlier pleadings. Thus, the pleadings were directed to the legal issue as required by Rule 1.430, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.² Because the pleadings of November 26, 1984, were directed to this legal issue, on which petitioners are clearly entitled to a jury trial, the demand for jury trial served by mail December 7, 1984, and filed December 10, 1984, was timely.³

We do not address the question of which of the numerous potential issues in this case should be tried by a jury; nor do we determine the order in- which these jury and nonjury issues should be tried. These are matters for the trial court and are not properly before us on this appeal.

Accordingly, the writ is granted, the order denying petitioners’ demand for a jury trial as untimely is quashed, and the cause is remanded so that a jury trial can be held on all issues so triable and for which demand was made.

BOOTH, C.J., and WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us by petition for a writ of common-law certiorari. Petitioners contend that the denial of their demand for a jury trial as untimely was a departure from the essential requirements of law. We agree.

Respondents’ answer to petitioners’ third amended counterclaim and respondents’ reply to petitioners’ fifth and sixth affirmative defenses, which were served on November 26, 1984, incorporated by reference Count III for money damages,¹ a legal issue contained in the earlier pleadings. Thus, the pleadings were directed to the legal issue as required by Rule 1.430, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.² Because the pleadings of November 26, 1984, were directed to this legal issue, on which petitioners are clearly entitled to a jury trial, the demand for jury trial served by mail December 7, 1984, and filed December 10, 1984, was timely.³

We do not address the question of which of the numerous potential issues in this case should be tried by a jury; nor do we determine the order in- which these jury and nonjury issues should be tried. These are matters for the trial court and are not properly before us on this appeal.

Accordingly, the writ is granted, the order denying petitioners’ demand for a jury trial as untimely is quashed, and the cause is remanded so that a jury trial can be held on all issues so triable and for which demand was made.

BOOTH, C.J., and WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 So. 2d 1011, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1731, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-kannwischer-fladistctapp-1985.