Tesher & Tesher, PA v. Rothfield
This text of 392 So. 2d 1000 (Tesher & Tesher, PA v. Rothfield) 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.
Opinion
TESHER & TESHER, P.A., a Florida Professional Association, Appellant,
v.
Ira ROTHFIELD and Ira Rothfield, D.D.S., P.A., Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sheldon Evans of Freeman & Evans, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
Jonathan J. Davis of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
*1001 PER CURIAM.
We have for review a directed verdict after two mistrials.
As indicated in our previous opinion in this case, Tesher & Tesher, P.A. v. Rothfield, 387 So.2d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), a directed verdict should not be entered unless no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict for the party moved against. Sun Life Ins. Co. of America v. Evans, 340 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
It is also firmly established that trial by jury is an organic right that under no circumstances should be denied. Orr v. Avon Florida Citrus Corporation, 130 Fla. 306, 177 So. 612 (Fla. 1938).
Our review of the trial transcript and matters in evidence impel us to conclude that the directed verdict was improvidently entered. Despite the presumption of correctness which clothes the order from which this appeal is taken we are unable to conclude that as a matter of law no view of the evidence could sustain a verdict for the appellant.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MOORE, HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
392 So. 2d 1000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tesher-tesher-pa-v-rothfield-fladistctapp-1981.