McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. v. Valdes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. v. Valdes

625 So. 2d 1330, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11260, 1993 WL 457410

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 9, 1993

DocketNo. 93-1550

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 625 So. 2d 1330 (McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. v. Valdes) 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

McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. v. Valdes, 625 So. 2d 1330, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11260, 1993 WL 457410 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., appeals a non-final order denying a motion to transfer venue. We affirm.

It is well settled that the trial court’s determination on venue is presumptively correct. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Ray, 418 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied sub nom., B.F. Goodrich v. Ray, 427 So.2d 736 (Fla.1983); Taylor v. Dasilva, 401 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In close cases, the appellate court should defer to the judgment of the trial court. Hu v. Crockett, 426 So .2d 1275, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

When venue is proper in more than one county, it is the plaintiffs choice where to file suit. Houchins v. Florida East Coast Ry., 388 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The trial court’s ruling should not be disturbed absent a showing of substantial inconvenience or the likelihood of injustice. Taylor, 401 So.2d at 1162.

Appellant has not established either a showing of substantial inconvenience or the likelihood of injustice by the trial court’s denial of the motion to change venue. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.

Affirmed.

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