HARRY BARNETT
v.
LINDA SIMONET, ET AL.
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.
A directed verdict is properly affirmed on appeal when, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor.
[1] When reviewing a directed verdict on appeal, all evidence and inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
[2] A directed verdict may be affirmed on appeal when no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“an appellate court reviewing the grant of a directed verdict must view the evidence and all inferences of fact in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and can affirm a directed verdict [] where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party.”
Standard of review for directed verdicts, citing Diageo Dominicana, S.R.L. v. United Brands, S.A.
Harry Barnett brought an action against Linda Simonet, Florida Keys Veterinary relief d/b/a Key West Vets and Pets, and Dr. Thomas Householder in the …
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 Directed Verdict Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 31, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D24-1454 Lower Tribunal No. 18-CA-1271-K
Harry Barnett, Appellant,
vs.
Linda Simonet, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, James M. Barton, II, Senior Judge.
Harry Barnett, in proper person.
Kubicki Draper and Sharon C. Degnan (Orlando), for appellees Linda Simonet, Florida Keys Veterinary relief, d/b/a Key West Vets and Pets and Dr. Thomas Householder. Before LOGUE, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Diageo Dominicana, S.R.L. v. United Brands, S.A., 314 So. 3d 295, 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[A]n appellate court reviewing the grant of a directed verdict must view the evidence and all inferences of fact in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and can affirm a directed verdict [] where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party." (quoting Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315, 329 (Fla. 2001))); Florida E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Shulman, 481 So. 2d 965, 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (“An appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the jury on disputed questions of fact. If there is any competent evidence to support a verdict, that verdict must be sustained regardless of the appellate court's opinion as to its appropriateness.").
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Sanford Shulman, 481 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)