MEDICAL ARTS TRAINING CENTER, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL P. HOLLIDAY, 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.
Court affirmed jury verdict for plaintiff on commissions claim, rejecting defendant's post-verdict motions despite conflicting evidence on employment terms and amounts owed.
A jury verdict for commissions due under an employment agreement is supported by sufficient evidence and post-verdict motions for new trial, judgment notwithstanding verdict, and remittitur were properly denied.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying post-verdict motions when sufficient evidence supports the jury verdict, notwithstanding conflicting testimony rega…
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 intelligenceMedical Arts Training Center employed Holliday under an agreement providing for commissions. Conflicting evidence existed regarding the employment ter…
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 Employment Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm an order following a jury verdict for plaintiff denying the defendant’s motions for new trial, judgment notwithstanding verdict and remittitur. The claim is for commissions due under an employment agreement. There is conflicting evidence concerning the terms of employment, amount due, and amount of back charges, if any, to set off.
We conclude that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s verdict. The appellant has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the post verdict motions notwithstanding some uncertainty in the testimony concerning the amount owed and the possibility of additional back charges arising in the future. We note some discovery violations by the appellant, concerning its failure to produce records, apparently contributed to this uncertainty. Cf. Lassiter v. Int’l. Union of Operating Eng’r., 349 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1976); Cornell Computer Corp. v. Damion, 530 So. 2d 497 (Fla.3d DCA 1988).
Appellant has also failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion concerning the award of attorney’s fees, given the required findings in the trial court’s order and the absence of any record of the attorney’s fee hearing.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY, STONE and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lassitter v. Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, 349 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1976)
- Financiera Asociada, S.A. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 530 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Cornell Computer Corp. v. Damion, 530 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)