Smith Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Fraga

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Fraga

802 So. 2d 1183, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 18554, 2001 WL 1671339

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 26, 2001

DocketNo. 01-1620

StatusPublished

This text of 802 So. 2d 1183 (Smith Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Fraga) 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

Smith Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Fraga, 802 So. 2d 1183, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 18554, 2001 WL 1671339 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants below appeal from a final judgment entered for the plaintiff, an order denying their motion for a directed verdict, and an order denying their motion for a new trial. We find no merit in the defendants’ arguments and affirm. See In re Estate of Brandt, 613 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (“ ‘Only a deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority, bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifference to an order of the court, or conduct which evinces deliberate callousness will justify a dismissal of pleadings for a violation of discovery procedures.’ ” (quoting U.S.B. Acquisition Co. v. U.S. Block Corp., 564 So.2d 221, 222 (Fla. 4th DCA))). See also Medina v. Peralta, 802 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“ ‘A directed verdict is proper only when the record conclusively shows an absence of facts or inferences from facts to support a jury verdict, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.’ ” (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McKenzie, 502 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987))).

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendants below appeal from a final judgment entered for the plaintiff, an order denying their motion for a directed verdict, and an order denying their motion for a new trial. We find no merit in the defendants’ arguments and affirm. See In re Estate of Brandt, 613 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (“ ‘Only a deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority, bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifference to an order of the court, or conduct which evinces deliberate callousness will justify a dismissal of pleadings for a violation of discovery procedures.’ ” (quoting U.S.B. Acquisition Co. v. U.S. Block Corp., 564 So.2d 221, 222 (Fla. 4th DCA))). See also Medina v. Peralta, 802 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“ ‘A directed verdict is proper only when the record conclusively shows an absence of facts or inferences from facts to support a jury verdict, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.’ ” (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McKenzie, 502 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987))).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

802 So. 2d 1183, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 18554, 2001 WL 1671339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-terminal-warehouse-co-v-fraga-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack