Tanny v. Lerner

Florida Circuit Courts

Tanny v. Lerner

1 Fla. Supp. 2d 164

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 1981

DocketNo. 80-343 AP; No. 80-344 AP

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Fla. Supp. 2d 164 (Tanny v. Lerner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tanny v. Lerner, 1 Fla. Supp. 2d 164 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from a final judgment of VIC TANNY OF FLORIDA, INC. who was the defendant in the trial court. The facts indicate that the Appellees were patrons at VIC TANNY’s when one of TANNY’s employees broke into the Appellees’ locker and stole certain personal property from the Appellees.

The Appellant herein seeks reversal on several grounds, two of which the Court finds to be meritorious. First of all the record indicates that the trial of these cases was heard by Judge Edelstein but the Final Judgment was entered by Judge Newman. Such action clearly requires reversal of both judgments (See Bradford v. Foundation & Marine Construction Co., 182 So.2d 447, (Fla.2d DCA 1966). The other error by the trial court was permitting the introduction of hearsay evidence to prove the value of some of the property taken.

We agree with the findings of the trial court that the Appellant was liable for the losses incurred by the Appellees, however, for the reasons above stated, we hereby vacate the judgments of the trial court and remand this cause for new trials on the issue of damages.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

This is an appeal from a final judgment of VIC TANNY OF FLORIDA, INC. who was the defendant in the trial court. The facts indicate that the Appellees were patrons at VIC TANNY’s when one of TANNY’s employees broke into the Appellees’ locker and stole certain personal property from the Appellees.

The Appellant herein seeks reversal on several grounds, two of which the Court finds to be meritorious. First of all the record indicates that the trial of these cases was heard by Judge Edelstein but the Final Judgment was entered by Judge Newman. Such action clearly requires reversal of both judgments (See Bradford v. Foundation & Marine Construction Co., 182 So.2d 447, (Fla.2d DCA 1966). The other error by the trial court was permitting the introduction of hearsay evidence to prove the value of some of the property taken.

We agree with the findings of the trial court that the Appellant was liable for the losses incurred by the Appellees, however, for the reasons above stated, we hereby vacate the judgments of the trial court and remand this cause for new trials on the issue of damages.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Fla. Supp. 2d 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanny-v-lerner-flacirct-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack