ROBINSON, ET UX.
v.
ZISMAN
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 circuit court ruled on a motion for taxation of costs following the defendant's nonsuit judgment. The court found that the plaintiff's counsel had failed to adequately prepare for trial and allowed a nonsuit, then taxed $191.70 in costs (including $100 in attorney's fees) against the plaintiffs.
The court determined that costs of $191.70 (including $100 in attorney's fees and $91.70 in miscellaneous items) were properly taxable against the plaintiffs under Rule 1.35(a)(2) because the plaintiffs' counsel had failed to come to trial adequately prepared to present their case.
“the nonsuit was taken because counsel for the plaintiffs had failed to come to trial adequately prepared to present their case to the court and the jury”
Establishes the factual basis for allowing the nonsuit and the grounds for taxation of costs
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case came to trial before a jury on May 15, 1963. During the trial, after the noon recess, the plaintiffs' counsel informed the court that he was…
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 Nonsuit cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause coming on to be heard on the motion of the defendant, Herbert J, Zisman, for the taxation of costs in the above entitled cause in favor of said defendant and against the plaintiffs, Linda Marie Robinson and Terry Robinson, her husband, and after argument of counsel, the court, after a consideration of the matter, determined that the costs recoverable by the defendant under the judgment of nonsuit of May 24, 1963, are $191.70, and such costs are hereby taxed.
The court, however, wishes to make certain special findings of facts —
1. That this cause came on to trial before a jury on the 15th day of May, 1963, and that witnesses were called in behalf of the plaintiffs during the course of the trial.
2. After the noon recess on May 15, 1963, the court reconvened for the continuation of the trial at 2:30 P. M. At that time, counsel for the plaintiffs advised the court that he was unable to *139proceed because he had not made arrangements to produce certain witnesses that would be necessary to establish the materiality of and identity of certain photographs that the plaintiffs desired to place in evidence.
This matter was fully discussed at that time, and it is the opinion of the court, and consequently the finding of this court, that the nonsuit was taken because counsel for the plaintiffs had failed to come to trial adequately prepared to present their case to the court and the jury.
3. This court at that time allowed the nonsuit pursuant to Rule 1.35(a) (2), and at that time advised counsel for the plaintiffs that said nonsuit would be allowed; however, under the terms and the conditions that the court would tax such costs against the plaintiffs as the court thought necessary and proper.
Pursuant to these occurrences of May 15, 1963, the court, on May 29, 1963, heard the defendant’s motion for taxation of costs, and after argument of counsel, and a consideration of the matter, determined that certain miscellaneous items totalling $91.70 were taxable against the plaintiffs, and that in addition thereto, the defendant was entitled to $100 attorney’s fees, which were also taxed as a cost, the court being of the opinion that all items allowed as costs were properly taxable under the rule stated above.
And let execution issue on this judgment in accordance with the law.