ANTHONY J. FERAYORNI, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 court accepted jurisdiction and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a prior decision.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision conflicted with another district court's decision. The Supreme Court had subsequently approved the othe…
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 Remand For Reconsideration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the decision in Hyundai Motor Co. v. Ferayorni, 795 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), which certified conflict with the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Nash v. General Motors Corp., 734 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Subsequently, we approved, in part, the Third District’s decision in Nash. See D’Amario v. Ford Motor Co., 806 So. 2d 424, 442 (Fla.2001). On March 19, 2002, we entered an order directing the parties to show cause why the case should not be remanded for reconsideration in light of our decision in DAmario.
Upon review of the responses to the March 19, 2002, order, the Court has determined that it should accept jurisdiction in this case and remand the case to the district court for reconsideration in light of our opinion in DAmario. Accordingly, review is granted, the Fourth District’s decision in this case is quashed, and this matter is remanded for reconsideration in accordance with our decision in DAmario.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ„ concur. WELLS, C.J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Salazar v. State, 991 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 2008)…3 (Fla.2005) (“[A] trial court’s ruling on a motion for mistrial is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review.” (quoting Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537, 546 (Fla. 1999))); Floyd v. State, 913 So. 2d 564, 576 (Fla.2005); Ricks v. Loyola, 822 So. 2d 502, 506 (Fla.2002) (holding that “trial courts have broad discretion when ruling on motions for new trial and motions for mistrial”); Ford v. State, 802 So. 2d 1121, 1129 (Fla.2001) (“A trial court’s ruling on a motion for a mistrial is within the soun…
-
Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. DU Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 48 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…notice. We conclude that this constituted error. It is well-established that evidence demonstrating that a defendant settled other claims involving the same product .deprives the defendant of a fair trial. See § 90.408, Fla. Stat.; Ricks v. Loyola, 822 So. 2d 502, 508 (Fla.2002). Thus, it was error for the trial court to allow this information to be introduced. [*994] This Court has held that evidence of a defendant’s settlement with another claimant alleging liability for the same actions is “immediately an…
-
Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Constr., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009)…adicate from the jury’s minds the considerations that where there has been a payment there must have been liability.” Jordan, 186 So. 2d at 63 (quoting Fenberg v. Rosenthal, 348 Ill.App. 510, 109 N.E. 2d 402, 405 (1952)); see, e.g., Ricks v. Loyola, 822 So. 2d 502, 508 (Fla.2002) (affirming trial court’s grant of new trial where counsel made an “empty chair” argument implying a settlement was reached with others); Muhammad v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 668 So. 2d 254, 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing and remanding…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- D'Amario v. Ford Motor Co., 806 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2001)
- Nash v. Gen. Motors Corp., 734 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- White v. CCH Dev. Corp., 795 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)