Van Engers v. Hickory House, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Van Engers v. Hickory House, Inc.

118 So. 2d 657, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2782

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 1960

DocketNo. 59-410

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 So. 2d 657 (Van Engers v. Hickory House, Inc.) 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

Van Engers v. Hickory House, Inc., 118 So. 2d 657, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2782 (Fla. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PEARSON, Judge,

This case was previously before this court.¹ At that time we found, upon an appeal from a summary final judgment, that a genuine issue of material fact existed and returned the cause for trial. At the conclusion of the trial the plaintiff .requested a charge which was an exact quotation from the opinion of this court upon the appeal. The charge was refused and upon delivery of an adverse verdict and entry of judgment thereon, the plaintiffs appealed. They urge that the refusal of a charge embracing the law as declared in a former appeal .constitutes .reversible error.

The use of any given language in an opinion is not sufficient to require the use of that language by a trial court in its charge upon a subsequent trial of the same case. Alford v. Cochran, 189 Or. 24, 216 P.2d 667, 669; News Leader Co. v. Kocen, 173 Va. 95, 3 S.E.2d 385, 391, 122 A.L.R. 842; cf. Davis v. Cain, 86 Fla. 18, 97 So. 305; Florida Ry. Co. v. Dorsey, 59 Fla. 260, 52 So. 963. A jury is properly instructed upon the law of the case as it applies to the evidence. The need for instruction is determined by the issues liti-

[658]*658gated. The opinions of appellate courts necessarily employ legal terms not always generally understood. Their purpose is to define. Instructions have the broader purpose of aiding the jury in their understanding of the case.

An examination of the entire charge in the instant case discloses that the principles of law applicable to the evidence were adequately covered in the particular to which our attention is directed by the assignment of error.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and MILLEDGE, STANLEY, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PEARSON, Judge,

This case was previously before this court.¹ At that time we found, upon an appeal from a summary final judgment, that a genuine issue of material fact existed and returned the cause for trial. At the conclusion of the trial the plaintiff .requested a charge which was an exact quotation from the opinion of this court upon the appeal. The charge was refused and upon delivery of an adverse verdict and entry of judgment thereon, the plaintiffs appealed. They urge that the refusal of a charge embracing the law as declared in a former appeal .constitutes .reversible error.

The use of any given language in an opinion is not sufficient to require the use of that language by a trial court in its charge upon a subsequent trial of the same case. Alford v. Cochran, 189 Or. 24, 216 P.2d 667, 669; News Leader Co. v. Kocen, 173 Va. 95, 3 S.E.2d 385, 391, 122 A.L.R. 842; cf. Davis v. Cain, 86 Fla. 18, 97 So. 305; Florida Ry. Co. v. Dorsey, 59 Fla. 260, 52 So. 963. A jury is properly instructed upon the law of the case as it applies to the evidence. The need for instruction is determined by the issues liti-

[658]*658gated. The opinions of appellate courts necessarily employ legal terms not always generally understood. Their purpose is to define. Instructions have the broader purpose of aiding the jury in their understanding of the case.

An examination of the entire charge in the instant case discloses that the principles of law applicable to the evidence were adequately covered in the particular to which our attention is directed by the assignment of error.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and MILLEDGE, STANLEY, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 So. 2d 657, 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-engers-v-hickory-house-inc-fladistctapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack