Levy v. Hawk's Cay, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Levy v. Hawk's Cay, Inc.

505 So. 2d 24, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 947

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 7, 1987

Docket86-3096

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 505 So. 2d 24 (Levy v. Hawk's Cay, Inc.) 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

Levy v. Hawk's Cay, Inc., 505 So. 2d 24, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 947 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

505 So.2d 24 (1987)

Susan LEVY and Howard Levy, Her Husband, Appellants,
v.
HAWK's CAY, INC., Hawk's Cay Investors Ltd.; Brandy Group, Inc., Brandy Marine of the Keys; Sears, Roebuck & Co.; Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co.; and Jeffrey Sylvester, Appellees.

No. 86-3096.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 7, 1987.

Shutts & Bowen and Richard M. Leslie, Miami, and Anthony J. Oliva, Coral Gables, for appellants.

Arnstein, Gluck, Lehr & Milligan, and Carol McLean Brewer, West Palm Beach, James C. Blecke and Susan S. Lerner, Miami, Conroy, Simberg, Wilensky & Lewis, Hollywood and Sharon A. Shade, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The non-final order transferring the venue of the instant negligence/products liability action below from Dade County to Monroe County, Florida, under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1985), is affirmed because, simply stated, there was a reasonable basis in the record for such a decision and, accordingly, no gross abuse of discretion has been shown. This is so due to the fact that: (a) the action sued upon arose in Monroe County, (b) thirty-one of the sixty non-party witnesses in this cause reside in Monroe County, and (c) very few witnesses in the cause are located in Dade County. Accordingly, it can reasonably be said that *25 (1) substantial inconvenience to the parties has been shown below for the case to be tried in Dade County, and (2) Monroe County is a far more convenient county in which to try this cause than is Dade County. We have not overlooked the contrary arguments raised by the plaintiffs/appellants, but we conclude that none can carry the day in demonstrating a gross abuse of discretion. See Sun Bank of Ocala v. International Harvester Co., 408 So.2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Della-Donna v. Gore Newspaper Co., 390 So.2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 399 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 1981); Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. Moore, 355 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Peterson, Howell & Heather v. O'Neill, 314 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

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

505 So.2d 24 (1987)

Susan LEVY and Howard Levy, Her Husband, Appellants,
v.
HAWK's CAY, INC., Hawk's Cay Investors Ltd.; Brandy Group, Inc., Brandy Marine of the Keys; Sears, Roebuck & Co.; Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co.; and Jeffrey Sylvester, Appellees.

No. 86-3096.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 7, 1987.

Shutts & Bowen and Richard M. Leslie, Miami, and Anthony J. Oliva, Coral Gables, for appellants.

Arnstein, Gluck, Lehr & Milligan, and Carol McLean Brewer, West Palm Beach, James C. Blecke and Susan S. Lerner, Miami, Conroy, Simberg, Wilensky & Lewis, Hollywood and Sharon A. Shade, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The non-final order transferring the venue of the instant negligence/products liability action below from Dade County to Monroe County, Florida, under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1985), is affirmed because, simply stated, there was a reasonable basis in the record for such a decision and, accordingly, no gross abuse of discretion has been shown. This is so due to the fact that: (a) the action sued upon arose in Monroe County, (b) thirty-one of the sixty non-party witnesses in this cause reside in Monroe County, and (c) very few witnesses in the cause are located in Dade County. Accordingly, it can reasonably be said that *25 (1) substantial inconvenience to the parties has been shown below for the case to be tried in Dade County, and (2) Monroe County is a far more convenient county in which to try this cause than is Dade County. We have not overlooked the contrary arguments raised by the plaintiffs/appellants, but we conclude that none can carry the day in demonstrating a gross abuse of discretion. See Sun Bank of Ocala v. International Harvester Co., 408 So.2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Della-Donna v. Gore Newspaper Co., 390 So.2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 399 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 1981); Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. Moore, 355 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Peterson, Howell & Heather v. O'Neill, 314 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 So. 2d 24, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levy-v-hawks-cay-inc-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Susan LEVY and Howard Levy, Her Husband, Appellants, v. HAWK's CAY, INC., Hawk's Cay Investors Ltd.; Brandy Group, Inc., Brandy Marine of the Keys; Sears, Roebuck & Co.; Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co.; and Jeffrey Sylvester, Appellees.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Susan LEVY and Howard Levy, Her Husband, Appellants,
v.
HAWK's CAY, INC., Hawk's Cay Investors Ltd.; Brandy Group, Inc., Brandy Marine of the Keys; Sears, Roebuck & Co.; Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co.; and Jeffrey Sylvester, Appellees.