GORDON STENBACK AND CLYDE TRENARY, APPELLANTS,
v.
RACING ASSOCIATES, INC., 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.
Appellants Stenback and Trenary sued Racing Associates for breach of a written lease regarding timely delivery of an auditorium facility. The trial court granted defendant's motion for directed verdict, concluding that plaintiffs had committed anticipatory breach. The appellate court reversed, holding that the directed verdict was improper because evidence existed supporting a jury verdict for plaintiffs.
The trial court erred in directing a verdict for defendant. A directed verdict should only be granted when it is clearly apparent that no evidence supports a verdict for the non-moving party and the trial judge's conclusion is one of law rather than fact. Where evidence exists to justify a possible verdict for the non-moving party, a directed verdict violates the constitutional right to a jury trial.
[1] A directed verdict should be granted only when no evidence exists on which a jury could lawfully find for the non-moving party.
[2] When considering a motion for a directed verdict, all evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a directed verdict should be granted the defendant by the trial court at the close of plaintiff's case only when it is clearly apparent to the court that no evidence has been submitted on which the jury could lawfully find a verdict for the plaintiff and the conclusion reached by the trial judge under the circumstances is a conclusion of law resulting from the presence of a state of facts that permits no other legal result”
Establishes the strict standard for granting directed verdicts—only when no evidence could support the non-moving party's case and the conclusion is purely one of law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs/lessees entered into a written lease with defendant for an auditorium facility. A dispute arose regarding whether defendant could timely de…
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 Province Of The Jury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered pursuant to a directed verdict in a jury trial. Plaintiff/appellant sued defendant for breach of contract. The issue was whether, pursuant to a written lease, defendant was able to deliver an auditorium facility to the plaintiff/lessee in a timely fashion. The trial court concluded on motion for directed verdict that the plaintiff rather than the defendant had breached the lease in an anticipatory fashion. We conclude that this constituted error. The decision made by the trial court was basically one of fact. All evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party when considering a motion for directed verdict. As stated in Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc., 370 So. 2d 836 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), at page 838:
It is well established that a directed verdict should be granted the defendant by the trial court at the close of plaintiff’s case only when it is clearly apparent to the court that no evidence has been submitted on which the jury could lawfully find a verdict for the plaintiff and the conclusion reached by the trial judge under the circumstances is a conclusion of law resulting from the presence of a state of facts that permits no other legal result. MacAlpine v. Martin, 205 So. 2d 347 (Fla.2d DCA 1967); Sun Life Insurance Co. of America v. Evans, 340 So. 2d 957 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480, Florida Statutes Annotated, Volume 30. However, the direction of a verdict can constitute an encroachment on the right of a litigant to a jury trial and an invasion by the court of the province of a jury which is contrary to constitutional guaranties, where there is any evidence to justify a possible verdict for the non-moving party — even if a preponderance of the evidence appears to favor the movant. See Budgen v. Brady, 103 So. 2d 672 (Fla.lst DCA 1958).
We conclude this case is within the above quoted rule and that the trial court erred in directing a verdict.
The case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
REMANDED.
LETTS, C. J., and BERANEK, J., concur. DOWNEY, J., dissents, with opinion.
DOWNEY, Judge,
dissenting:
The evidence in this case reflects that appellants contracted to lease the Sportato- rium from appellee from 2:00 p. m. until midnight on June 17, 1973, to present a country western show. Although appellee was having difficulty obtaining a certificate of occupancy prior to the date in question, by approximately 2:00 p. m. on the date for the performance appellee was able to furnish the premises to appellants for the show. However, appellants had become nervous over the possibility the show would not go on. Therefore, appellants set 10:00 a. m. of the day of performance as an arbitrary deadline for the certificate of occupancy. When that time passed appellants cancelled the contract and notified the performers not to come to Hollywood. Appellants then commenced this suit.
In my judgment the appellee was able to furnish the facility within the time frame provided by the contract and appellants’ anticipatory termination of the contract precludes them from maintaining this action. Thus, the directed verdict and final judgment for appellee was appropriate.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Collins v. The Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty., 471 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…ant, and, in the face of evidence which is at odds or contradictory, all conflicts must he resolved in favor of the party against whom the motion has been made. Reams v. Vaughn, 435 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Stenbak v. Racing Associates, Inc., 394 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Similarly, every reasonable, conclusion which may be drawn from the evidence must also be construed favorably to the non-movant. Reams; Stenback, supra. Only where there is no evidence upon which a jury could properly rely, in f…1 / 2
-
Eli Plotch and Philip Berkley v. August Gregory, Jr., 463 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…not reasonably differ as to the existence of any material fact and that the defendant is entitled to judgment., as a matter of law. Forshee v. Peninsular Life Ins. Co., 370 So. 2d'842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); see also Stenback v. Racing Associates, Inc., 394 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Stokes v. Clark, 390 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). On appellate review, a directed verdict should be affirmed if, in viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to [*436] the non-moving party, it appears that the trier of f…
-
Ritz v. Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund, 436 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…tions which the jury should have been allowed to determine. Where there are questions of fact, directing a verdict is error because it deprives a party of his constitutional right to trial by a jury of his peers. Stenback v. Racing Associates, Inc., 394 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The record here shows there was an issue concerning whether or not Dr. Keller materially misrepresented the gravity of the surgery to be performed on Marcella. Mr. and Mrs. Ritz both testified Dr. Keller failed to tell them tha…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Budgen v. Brady, 103 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc., 370 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- SUN Life Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Evans, 340 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- MacALPINE v. Martin, 205 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)