A. D. HENDERSON ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
PETER PETRI, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the award of punitive damages was neither legally nor factually supportable and must be set aside.
Plaintiff sued defendants for replevin, trespass, and conversion. Defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract, negligence, and conversion. The ju…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legal Rate Of Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from the final judgment of the Circuit Court, Marion County, entered on a jury verdict in a suit for replevin, trespass and conversion brought by plaintiff Petri (appellee herein) against defendants (appellants herein) who counterclaimed for breach of contract, negligence and conversion. The jury awarded Petri possession of the personal property in question and punitive damages against the defendant A. D. Henderson and defendant Rosemary Henderson. The court entered judgment on the verdict and added inter est1 at the legal rate from the date of detention. A verdict and judgment was also entered for the defendant/counter-plaintiffs, A. D. Henderson and Rosemary Henderson, on their claim of open account and conversion against Petri, but is not an issue on this appeal.
Our examination of the record reveals that the verdict does not address nor resolve the several causes of action made by the pleading nor does the judgment entirely accord with the verdict. However, inasmuch as the parties have not raised these issues in their briefs, we will not address them here. The record, briefs, and argument of counsel have been considered, and we find that the award of punitive damages in this case is neither legally nor factually supportable and must be set aside.
Accordingly, that portion of the judgment below which awards punitive damages against the appellants is REVERSED and the balance of the judgment AFFIRMED.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and BOOTH, JJ., concur. . Contra: Cary & Co. v. Hyer, 91 Fla. 322, 107 So. 684, 688 (1926); See Florida Statute § 78.-01.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Country Manors Ass'n, Inc. v. Master Antenna Sys., Inc., 534 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…. 3d DCA 1986); Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 494 So. 2d 1151 (Fla.1986); St. John v. Kuper, 489 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Hooks, 463 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Henderson v. Petri, 365 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 75 (Fla.1979); Brock v. Maine, 293 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 297 So. 2d 837 (Fla.1974); General Finance Corporation of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Sexton, 155 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). See…
Authorities Cited
- Cary & Co. v. Hyer, 91 Fla. 322 (Fla. 1926)