Ruding v. Thompson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ruding v. Thompson

517 So. 2d 706, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2828, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11415, 1987 WL 2260

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 9, 1987

DocketNo. 87-0040

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 517 So. 2d 706 (Ruding v. Thompson) 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

Ruding v. Thompson, 517 So. 2d 706, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2828, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11415, 1987 WL 2260 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment which awarded damages of $32,184 to the plaintiff, Hugh G. Thompson, Jr., based on fraudulent misrepresentation. George H. Ruding and E.F. Hutton and Company, defendants, appeal. No reversible error having been made to appear, we affirm as to the main appeal.

Mr. Thompson cross appeals saying that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on his claim for punitive damages. Based upon the authority of First Interstate Development Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So.2d 536 (Fla.1987), we agree that reversible error was committed when the trial court disallowed Mr. Thompson’s claim for punitive damages against Mr. Ruding.

Thus, as to the cross appeal, we affirm the directed verdict on punitive damages as concerns E.F. Hutton and Company. We reverse the directed verdict on punitive damages as concerns Mr. Ruding and remand for a new trial solely as to Mr. Rud-ing on the punitive damages issue.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded with instructions.

DOWNEY, LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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