One Stop 76, Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

One Stop 76, Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation

762 So. 2d 962, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6230, 2000 WL 668890

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 24, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-2483

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 762 So. 2d 962 (One Stop 76, Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation) 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

One Stop 76, Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation, 762 So. 2d 962, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6230, 2000 WL 668890 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

STEVENSON, J.

The instant appeal stems from the Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”) condemnation of 1.359' acres of a 2.072-acre parcel owned by the appellants, One Stop 76, Inc. and Alfonso and Clemencia Castro. The parties settled the appellants’ claim for real property damages, but went to trial on the issue of business damages. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of DOT after finding that there was no evidence that anything other than activities that were separate .and distinct from the business of the convenience store, located on the portion of the property that was taken, were conducted on the remaining, un-con-demned. portion of the parcel. Our review of the record indicates that there was some evidence, that the appellants were engaging in business activities on the remaining portion of the parcel and the question of whether such activities were part and parcel of the business of the convenience store or separate and distinct is one that should have been resolved by the jury. See generally Blockbuster Video, Inc. v. Department of Transp., 714 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Palm Beach County v. Awadallah, 538 So.2d 142 [963]*963(Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 548 So.2d 662 (Fla.1989).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ„ concur.

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

STEVENSON, J.

The instant appeal stems from the Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”) condemnation of 1.359' acres of a 2.072-acre parcel owned by the appellants, One Stop 76, Inc. and Alfonso and Clemencia Castro. The parties settled the appellants’ claim for real property damages, but went to trial on the issue of business damages. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of DOT after finding that there was no evidence that anything other than activities that were separate .and distinct from the business of the convenience store, located on the portion of the property that was taken, were conducted on the remaining, un-con-demned. portion of the parcel. Our review of the record indicates that there was some evidence, that the appellants were engaging in business activities on the remaining portion of the parcel and the question of whether such activities were part and parcel of the business of the convenience store or separate and distinct is one that should have been resolved by the jury. See generally Blockbuster Video, Inc. v. Department of Transp., 714 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Palm Beach County v. Awadallah, 538 So.2d 142 [963]*963(Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 548 So.2d 662 (Fla.1989).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

762 So. 2d 962, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6230, 2000 WL 668890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/one-stop-76-inc-v-state-department-of-transportation-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack