LEONARD L. WROTON AND JOAN WROTON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
WASH-BOWL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND TED HARRIS, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES
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 affirmed the trial court's judgment applying the law of the case doctrine to preclude the Wrotons from relitigating damages issues (moving expenses and note discount loss) that were not appealed from the first trial.
The law of the case doctrine precludes relitigation of all issues necessarily ruled upon by the court or issues upon which appeal could have been taken but were not appealed.
[1] The law of the case doctrine precludes litigation of all issues necessarily ruled upon by the court, as well as all issues upon which appeal could have been taken but whi…
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 intelligenceThe Wrotons appealed a damages judgment in a case involving Wash-Bowl, Inc. and Ted Harris. The trial court ruled that moving expenses and loss on a n…
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 Moving Expenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
When this case was first before us we remanded for a new trial solely on the issue of damages without consideration of loss of profits as an element. Wash-Bowl, Inc. v. Wroton, 432 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Thereafter, the trial court entered judgment for damages, ruling that the Wrotons were precluded from seeking damages for moving expenses and for their loss on the discount of a note. His ruling was predicated on the fact that because the trial judge in the first trial had ruled that these items were not proper elements of damage and the Wrotons had not cross-appealed from that ruling, the ruling had become the law of the case. We agree with the trial judge.
The law of the case precludes litigation of all issues necessarily ruled upon by the court, as well as of all issues upon which appeal could have been taken but which were not appealed. State v. Stabile, 443 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). See Airvac, Inc. v. Ranger Insurance Co., 330 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1976); Alford v. Summerlin, 423 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Marine Midland Bank Central v. Cote, 384 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Flood v. Ware, 326 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); and Howell v. Howell, 207 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and DANAHY and LE-HAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sami Behar v. Jefferson Nat'l Bank at Sunny Isles, 519 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…complaint fails to state a cause of action is untimely. This court’s affirmance of the trial court’s determination of liability forecloses Behar from presenting defenses which could have been raised in a prior appeal. See Wroton v. Wash-Bowl, Inc., 456 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Malicoat v. LaChappelle, 390 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Marine Midland Bank Cent. v. Cote, 384 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Similarly, Behar’s argument that he withdrew from the conspiracy and should not be liable because…
-
State v. Arduengo, 609 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…d, as it does now, that no “resentencing” occurred. The precise question of Arduengo’s right to be present was not, but could have been, argued at that time. Our prior holding, therefore, established the “law of the case.” Wroton v. Wash-Bowl, Inc., 456 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).3 Harsh as they may seem to Arduengo, the original 99-year sentences are not illegal per se in that they do not exceed the statutory maximum. Having failed to present, now or in the past, any valid reason to reduce the sentence i…
-
PRN OF Denver, Inc. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 531 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…, a claimant’s prior experience in owning or managing the same type of business — as is quintessential^ the case here — satisfies the claimant’s burden of proof, Wash-Bowl, Inc. v. Wroton, 432 So. 2d 766, 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), appeal after remand, 456 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), since these are “facts of an equivalent import” to proof of an anterior profit history of the same company. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Utility Battery Mfg. Co., 122 Fla. 718, 727, 166 So. 856, 860 (1935). See Wharfside Two, Lt…
Authorities Cited
- Airvac, Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co., 330 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1976)
- Howell v. Howell, 207 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Marine Midland Bank Cent. v. Cote, 384 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Wash-Bowl, Inc. v. Wroton, 432 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Kingsway Condo. Apts. NO. 1, Inc. v. Kingsway Builders, Inc., 443 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Webb v. White, 423 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Alford v. Summerlin, 423 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- State v. Stabile, 443 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Flood v. Ware, 326 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)