JOSEPH ZERILLO, APPELLANT,
v.
SNAPPER POWER EQUIPMENT, HOME POWER EQUIPMENT, INC., AND BROWARD POWER EQUIPMENT, INC., 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.
This case addresses whether a directed verdict can be granted before a plaintiff has completed presenting their case. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding it a denial of due process.
Yes, the trial court erred by granting a directed verdict before the plaintiff completed his case. This action denied the plaintiff due process by preventing him from fully presenting his evidence.
[1] A trial court errs by directing a verdict for defendants prior to the completion of the plaintiff's case.
[2] A party may move for a directed verdict only at the close of the evidence offered by the adverse 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“Rule 1.480, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (1989), provides that a party may move for a directed verdict “at the close of the evidence offered by the adverse party.””
This quote establishes the procedural rule governing when a directed verdict can be sought.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Joseph Zerillo, was attempting to present his case when the defendants moved for and were granted a directed verdict. The trial court g…
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 Case In Chief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse, holding that the trial court erred by directing a verdict for defendants/appellees prior to the completion of plaintiff/appellant’s case. Rule 1.480, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (1989), provides that a party may move for a directed verdict “at the close of the evidence offered by the adverse party.” Here, appellant was not allowed to testify before the directed verdict was granted. As noted by the third district:
It is fundamental that the constitutional guarantee of due process, which extends into every proceeding, requires that the opportunity to be heard be full and fair, not merely colorable or illusive.
Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737, 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
Numerous Florida courts, including this one, have held that a party may not obtain a directed verdict prior to the time that the party moved against has completed his case-in-chief, since to do so would constitute a denial of due process of law. Southern Wood Indus., Inc. v. Florida Carolina Lumber Co., 84 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1956); Schurr v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 353 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (holding that the trial judge should not have attempted to determine liability before having a chance' to hear all the testimony appellant had to offer); Sheldon Greene and Assocs., Inc. v. Williams Island Assocs., 550 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 557 So. 2d 35 (Fla.1990); SJS Enterprises, Inc. v. Cates, 547 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (applying the same concept to the grant of a motion for involuntary dismissal and holding that the trial court could not “jump the gun” by granting such a motion before the party has completed his presentation of evidence); Carmichael v. Shelley Tractor & Equip. Co., 300 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (holding that there is a denial of due process when a party obtains a directed verdict prior to the time that the party moved against has completed his case-in-chief).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.N. and A.N. v. M.F.-A. and J.A., 946 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…ould produce, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant. This Court held that “it is error to direct a verdict before a plaintiff has completed presentation of his evidence.” Id. at 1143. Similarly, in Zerillo v. Snapper Power Equipment, 562 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), the Fourth District held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant prior to the completion of the plaintiffs case. In reaching its conclusion, the court noted: It is fundamental that the constitutional…
-
A.L. Williams v. Salem Free Will Baptist Church, 784 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…rs Club, 287 So. 2d 737, 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (holding that it was a violation of due process to grant a directed verdict in favor of plaintiff before the defendant had an opportunity to present his case-in-chief); Zerillo v. Snapper Power Equip., 562 So. 2d 819, 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (“[A] party may not obtain a directed verdict prior to the time that the party moved against has completed his case-in-chief, since to do so would constitute a denial of due process of law.”); Carmichael v. Shelley Tractor &…
-
Keith Phillips for the Estate of Sylvia Nightengale Phillips v. Ralph Guarneri, M.D., 785 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…clude that the decedent’s demise was not related to the care and treatment given by Dr. Guarneri. To direct a verdict prior to the completion of Phillips’ case in chief constitutes a denial of due process of law. See Zerillo v. Snapper Power Equip., 562 So. 2d 819, 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). There can be no doubt the error was harmful. We reverse and remand for a new trial. WARNER, C.J., and STEVENSON, J., concur. . See Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1993). Fabre defendants are non-parties which are al…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Waldo S. Carmichael v. Shelley Tractor & Equip. Co., 300 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Sheldon Greene & Assocs., Inc. v. Williams Island Assocs., 550 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- SJS Enters., Inc. v. Cates, 547 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- S. Wood Indus., Inc. v. Fla. Carolina Lumber Co., 84 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1956)
- Schurr v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 353 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)