MCKENZIE TANK LINES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
NESTOR VALDES, ET AL., 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.
The trial court's denial of a motion to transfer venue is affirmed because the appellant failed to demonstrate substantial inconvenience or likelihood of injustice.
Appellant McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. moved to transfer venue, which the trial court denied. This appeal followed.…
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 Appellate Deference cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., appeals a non-final order denying a motion to transfer venue. We affirm.
It is well settled that the trial court’s determination on venue is presumptively correct. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Ray, 418 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied sub nom., B.F. Goodrich v. Ray, 427 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1983); Taylor v. Dasilva, 401 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In close cases, the appellate court should defer to the judgment of the trial court. Hu v. Crockett, 426 So .2d 1275, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
When venue is proper in more than one county, it is the plaintiffs choice where to file suit. Houchins v. Florida East Coast Ry., 388 So. 2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The trial court’s ruling should not be disturbed absent a showing of substantial inconvenience or the likelihood of injustice. Taylor, 401 So. 2d at 1162.
Appellant has not established either a showing of substantial inconvenience or the likelihood of injustice by the trial court’s denial of the motion to change venue. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rayman v. Langdon Asset Mgmt., Inc., 745 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…CA 1970)(holding that because proper venue for Count One was in Dade County, Count Two could be brought there also). “When venue is proper in more than one county, it is the plaintiffs choice where to file suit.” McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. v. Valdes, 625 So. 2d 1330, 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (citing Houchins v. Florida East Coast Ry., 388 So. 2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)). Therefore, since Langdon may bring the action for nonpayment of monies in Dade County, the entire complaint may be properly brought in Da…
-
Santoro v. PJT Holdings, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Stephen C.S. HU v. Crockett, 426 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Coleman P. Houchins, Jr. v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 388 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- In re the Est. OF Helen G. Rust v. Bundy, 401 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. RAY, 418 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)