WILLIAM LONG, D/B/A IN & OUT FOOD STORES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
JANET BOGAERT, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Malicious Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants raise two issues in this appeal from a judgment for compensatory and punitive damages in an action for malicious prosecution and defamation.
The first issue raised was whether a judicial finding of probable cause after ap- pellee’s arrest foreclosed an action for malicious prosecution. This issue was not before the trial court on the motion for directed verdict and, therefore, has not been preserved for appeal. Without commentary on its effect, we note that the issue, as stated, misstates the fact. The judicial probable cause determination relied on by appellants was made prior to appellee’s arrest and not in an adversarial hearing after her arrest.
The second issue raised by appellants concerns the burden of proof to establish defamation. We do not reach that issue as the verdict for compensatory and punitive damages was not divided between the malicious prosecution count and the defamation count. We, therefore, cannot determine upon which count the damages were assessed. Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough, 355 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1978).
Affirmed.
RYDER, C.J., and CAMPBELL and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Getelman v. Burton R. Levey, 481 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…. We find it unnecessary to respond to this issue because the damage award was not divided between the breach of fiduciary duty count and the fraud count. We cannot therefore determine upon which count the jury assessed damages. See Long v. Bogaert, 471 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); City of Miami v. Harris, Nos. 84-1679, [*1239] 84-2525, 85-1352 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 17, 1985). We note that Mr. Getelman did not request separate damage findings for each count pled. Where a verdict can be sustained on any one of t…
-
Jackson v. Powell, 546 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…reverse the order modifying a child support obligation because there was no pleading or motion filed requesting such modification which would have afforded the appellant adequate and proper notice of [*1146] the requested relief. E.g., Pace v. Pace, 471 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Sweetland, v. Gauntlett, 460 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Valdes v. Valdes, 460 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The trial court may not circumvent such required pleadings by ordering a child support modification on its own motio…
-
Cline v. Wynn, 481 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…PER CURIAM. We vacate the per curiam affirmance entered by opinion filed herein dated November 26, 1985. The order from which the appeal is brought is reversed on authority of Pace v. Pace, 471 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (a trial court may not modify a prior child support award where no pleading has been filed requesting such modification). Reversed and remanded.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Doyle Wayne Scarbrough, 355 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977)