Roberts v. Row

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Roberts v. Row

743 So. 2d 1145, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13193, 1999 WL 791384

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 6, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1233

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 743 So. 2d 1145 (Roberts v. Row) 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

Roberts v. Row, 743 So. 2d 1145, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13193, 1999 WL 791384 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because a review of the record shows that there was conflicting evidence presented on the counterclaim to allow the jury to draw a reasonable inference of vicarious liability, we affirm the denial of the plaintiffs motions for directed verdict. Stinson v. Prevatt, 84 Fla. 416, 418-19, 94 So. 656, 657 (1922); Ligman v. Tardiff, 466 So.2d 1125, 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 478 So.2d 54 (Fla.1985). In addition, as to the cross-appeal, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to a provision in the underlying contract. The trial court had no discretion to decline to enforce this provision. Brickell Bay Club Condominium Ass’n v. Forte, 397 So.2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 408 So.2d 1092 (Fla.1981).

Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Because a review of the record shows that there was conflicting evidence presented on the counterclaim to allow the jury to draw a reasonable inference of vicarious liability, we affirm the denial of the plaintiffs motions for directed verdict. Stinson v. Prevatt, 84 Fla. 416, 418-19, 94 So. 656, 657 (1922); Ligman v. Tardiff, 466 So.2d 1125, 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 478 So.2d 54 (Fla.1985). In addition, as to the cross-appeal, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to a provision in the underlying contract. The trial court had no discretion to decline to enforce this provision. Brickell Bay Club Condominium Ass’n v. Forte, 397 So.2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 408 So.2d 1092 (Fla.1981).

Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

743 So. 2d 1145, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13193, 1999 WL 791384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-row-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack