TIMOTHY SMITH, APPELLANT,

v.

JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Fla. Health Scis. Ctr., Inc. v. Elsenheimer, 952 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
  …2d 293, 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). With respect to the three statutory factors of convenience of the parties, convenience of the witnesses, and the interests of justice, the convenience of the witnesses is the most important factor. Morrill v. Lytle, 893 So. 2d 671, 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). But, “for a court to consider the convenience of the witnesses, the court must know who the witnesses are and the significance of their testimony.” Hu v. Crockett, 426 So. 2d 1275, 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). To overcome a pl…
• Wynn Drywall, Inc. v. Aequicap Program Administrators, Inc., 953 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
  …ustice, any court of record may transfer any civil action to any other court of record in which it might have been brought.” The standard of review of a trial court’s denial of a motion for change of venue is' abuse of discretion. Morrill v. Lytle, 893 So. 2d 671, 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). “A plaintiffs forum selection is presumptively correct. The burden is on the defendant to establish before the trial court that either substantial inconvenience or undue expense requires a change for the convenience of the…
• Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. & Ford Motor Co. v. Est. OF Carlos Hernandez Chavez, 8 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
  …t denied the motion to transfer venue. This non-final appeal followed. The sole issue for our determination is whether, pursuant to section 47.122, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to transfer venue. See Morrill v. Lytle, 893 So. 2d 671, 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (holding that an appellate court reviews the trial court’s order denying a motion to transfer venue for abuse of discretion). “[Wjhere venue is proper in more than one county, the choice of forum rests with the plaintiff.” P…

Authorities Cited

• Burgess v. Crosby, 870 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
• Davidson v. Crosby, 883 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)