ALAN STOLER, D.D.S., APPELLANT,
v.
MARTIN LEVINSON, P.A., 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.
Reversed and remanded for new trial on malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims where trial court erred in directing verdict, but affirmed directed verdict on negligence claim for lack of prima facie case.
A directed verdict on malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims was improper where damages were sufficiently shown for attorney fees, nominal damages, and punitive damages, though the directed verdict on negligence was proper.
[1] Directed verdict on malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims is improper where attorney fees, nominal damages, and punitive damages are sufficiently proven, even…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStoler sued Levinson for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and negligence. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendant on all …
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 Nominal Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to order a new trial in this cause solely as to the plaintiff’s malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims. The trial court, in our view, committed reversible error in granting the defendant’s motion for directed verdict with respect to these claims. We cannot say, as the trial court concluded, that as a matter of law no damages were proven at trial on these claims. Although we agree that the proof of business losses in this case was, as presented, somewhat vague, we are nonetheless convinced that the other items of damages were sufficiently shown as to attorney fee costs, nominal damages and punitive damages so as to send this case to the jury. Adler v. Segal, 108 So. 2d 773 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 113 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1959); Burchell v. Bechert, 356 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 367 So. 2d 1122 (Fla.1978); compare Fee, Parker & Lloyd, P.A. v. Sullivan, 379 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
The trial court, however, was eminently correct in granting the defendant’s motion for directed verdict with respect to the negligence claim in this action. In our view, no prima facie case of negligence was established herein.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial as to appellant’s malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hans Ulrich Bothmann v. Harrington, 458 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…$1,000 attorney’s fee. We start out with the fact that there is no dispute over the recoverability or amount of attorney’s fees if liability is ultimately established. See Glusman v. Lieberman, 285 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Stoler v. Levinson, 394 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The dispute, instead, revolves around the three other claimed items of compensatory damages and the punitive damages claim. The three contested items of compensatory damages can be characterized as special damages. In a disparag…
-
MacALISTER v. Bevis Constr., Inc., 164 So. 3d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…lso King v. Saucier, 356 So. 2d 930, 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (“[T]he evidence was such that a jury could have found an invasion of appellant’s rights by conversion which could serve as the basis for an award of nominal damages.”); Stoler v. Levinson, 394 So. 2d 462, 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (reversing directed verdict and remanding malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims for ne\tf trial, stating that although proof of business losses was somewhat vague, “other items of damages were sufficiently shown a…
-
N. Star Cap. Acquisitions, LLC v. Krig, 611 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (M.D. Fla. 2009)…hat counterclaim plaintiffs have failed to offer evidence of actual damages, a necessary requirement to recover for abuse of process. Counterclaim plaintiffs assert that nominal damages are sufficient. The Court agrees. See Stoler v. Levinson, 394 So.2d 462 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981) (reversing trial court’s order that nominal damages, punitive damages and attorneys fees were insufficient to support claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution). Accordingly, summary judgment on counterclaim plaintiffs…
Authorities Cited
- FEE v. Sullivan, 379 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Mel Adler v. Zeke Segal, 108 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Burchell v. Bechert, 356 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Di Cicco v. Manassa, 113 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1959)
- 244 N. BAY Shore Drive, Inc. v. Ussery, 113 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1959)