Whitehead v. National Crane Corp.

466 So. 2d 412, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 872, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13237
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 2, 1985·No. No. 84-2779·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm upon a holding that a motion for change of venue based upon forum non-conveniens, unlike a motion challenging improper venue, need not be made within the time limits set forth under Rule 1.140, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Gross v. Franklin, 387 So.2d 1046, 1049 n. 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). See § 47.-122, Fla.Stat. (1983). Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in transferring the action to Monroe County where most of the witnesses to the decedent’s accident reside. See Hu v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Hughes Supply, Inc. v. Pearl, 403 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Peterson, Howell & Heather v. O’Neill, 314 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

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

Whitehead v. National Crane Corp., 466 So. 2d 412, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 872, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13237 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

466 So. 2d 412 (Whitehead v. National Crane Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stamen v. Arrillaga
169 So. 3d 1209 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Burns
672 So. 2d 834 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
John Christen Corp. v. Maita
571 So. 2d 24 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)