Sun Bank of Ocala v. International Harvester Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sun Bank of Ocala v. International Harvester Co.

408 So. 2d 661, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 22082

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 29, 1981

DocketNo. 81-1974

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 408 So. 2d 661 (Sun Bank of Ocala v. International Harvester Co.) 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

Sun Bank of Ocala v. International Harvester Co., 408 So. 2d 661, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 22082 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court, under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979) [forum non conveniens], transferring plaintiffs’ personal injury cause of action to the county where the accident which caused the injury occurred, when 95 of the 99 witnesses listed by the plaintiffs live outside of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit and 80 witnesses either live in the county where the accident occurred or in nearby counties. See: Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. v. Vice, 402 So.2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Kilpatrick v. Boynton, 374 So.2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Kelly-Springfield Tire Company v. Moore, 355 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Hertz Corporation v. Rentz, 326 So.2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Gaboury v. Flagler Hospital, 316 So.2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Peterson, Howell and Heather v. O’Neill, 314 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Sec. 47.122, Florida Statutes (1977).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court, under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1979) [forum non conveniens], transferring plaintiffs’ personal injury cause of action to the county where the accident which caused the injury occurred, when 95 of the 99 witnesses listed by the plaintiffs live outside of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit and 80 witnesses either live in the county where the accident occurred or in nearby counties. See: Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. v. Vice, 402 So.2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Kilpatrick v. Boynton, 374 So.2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Kelly-Springfield Tire Company v. Moore, 355 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Hertz Corporation v. Rentz, 326 So.2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Gaboury v. Flagler Hospital, 316 So.2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Peterson, Howell and Heather v. O’Neill, 314 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Sec. 47.122, Florida Statutes (1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

408 So. 2d 661, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 22082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sun-bank-of-ocala-v-international-harvester-co-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack