THOMAS J. KELLY, APPELLANT,
v.
EZEQUIEL HERNANDEZ AND MRS. EZEQUIEL HERNANDEZ, APPELLEES
THOMAS J. KELLY, APPELLANT,
EZEQUIEL HERNANDEZ AND MRS. EZEQUIEL HERNANDEZ, APPELLEES
545 So. 2d 497
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1989)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See David v. Sun Federal Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 461 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1984); River Holding Co. v. Nickel, 62 So. 2d 702 (Fla.1952); Campbell v. Werner, 232 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wransky v. Clorinda V. Dalfo & Ahmanson & Co., 801 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…case.” Id. Wransky’s special instruction correctly summarized a proposition of law that punitive damages should not be allowed to destroy or bankrupt a defendant. See Aral Termite & Pest Control of Fla., Inc., 409 So. 2d at 1043; Sutter v. Hammond, 545 So. 2d 497, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). While the standard jury instruction informs the jury that it should consider the defendant’s financial worth in determining an amount of punitive damages, the instruction does not inform the jury that there is an upper limi…
-
Brooks v. Rios, 707 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…enough to provide some retribution and deterrence, it should not be in an amount which will financially destroy or bankrupt the defendant. See Arab Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Jenkins, 409 So. 2d 1039, 1043 [*376] (Fla.1982); Sutter v. Hammond, 545 So. 2d 497, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Hockensmith v. Waxier, 524 So. 2d 714, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Smith v. Telophase Nat’l Cremation Soc’y, Inc., 471 So. 2d 163, 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); City Stores Co. v. Mazzaferro, 342 So. 2d 827, 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).…
-
Fla. Sunrise, Ltd. v. Tri-M Invs. OF S. Fla., Inc., 942 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…opinion. In the event the trial court is unable to determine an appropriate amount for remittitur, or TRI-MSF declines to accept the remittitur, we remand for a new trial. See Tobias v. Osorio, 681 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Sutter v. Hammond, 545 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We also note that the final judgment states that it is against Florida Sunrise and its assigns. The judgment should not have included the language and its assigns. Accordingly, we direct that the trial court not include this la…
Authorities Cited
- David v. SUN Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 461 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1984)
- Campbell v. Werner, 232 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- The City OF Pensacola v. Blanchard, 232 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- River Holding Co. v. Nickel et ux., 62 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1952)