LEE WILSON, D/B/A LEE WILSON COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
C. E. ROBINSON, APPELLEE
LEE WILSON, D/B/A LEE WILSON COMPANY, APPELLANT,
C. E. ROBINSON, APPELLEE
104 So. 2d 124
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1958)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 18 cases
Opinion of the Court
Affirmed upon the rule stated in American Mercantile Co. v. Circular Advertising Co., 71 Fla. 522, 71 So. 607, 608, to the effect that when testimony for a defendant was uncertain and not sufficient to sustain a verdict for the defendant, there was no error in directing a verdict for the plainjiff who successfully carried the burden of proof on the issues presented.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kutner v. Kalish, 173 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…llers, 158 Fla. 562, 28 So. 2d 823 (1947); Watson v. Jones, 41 Fla. 241, 25 So. 678 (1899). . Mizell v. Upchurch, 46 Fla. 433, 35 So. 9 (1903). . Nunez v. Alford, Fla.App.1960, 117 So. 2d 208. . Binz v. Helvetia Florida Enterprises, Fla.App.1960, 104 So. 2d 124. . See Gair v. Lockhart, Fla.1950, 47 So. 2d 826; Renpak, Inc. v. Oppenheimer, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 642; Ocala Loan Co. v. Smith, Note 2, supra. . Messana v. Maule Industries, Fla.1951, 50 So. 2d 874.…
-
Thompson v. Safeco Ins. Co. OF Am., 199 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…Alford, Fla.App.1960, 117 So. 2d 208. Those allegations are then viewed in the light of the applicable substantive law to determine the existence of the cause of action. Kutner v. Kalish, supra; Binz v. Helvetia Florida Enterprises, Fla.App. 1958, 104 So. 2d 124. Counts I and II of plaintiff’s second amended complaint clearly allege and set forth with' particularity the circumstances that (a) defendant’s representations were false, (b) that the defendant knew them to be false, (c) that defendant intended t…
-
Beuleah S. Pasekoff and Richard L. Grinberg v. Kaufman, 392 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…oppel theory applied in Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 115 Fla. 21, 155 So. 136 (1934). Accord, Woodward v. Kitchen, 112 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); see also, Walker v. Senn, 340 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Binz v. Helvetia Florida Enterprises, 104 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). We conclude, moreover, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint so as to reflect this theory. The very terms of Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.190(a) provide that “leave [to amend] shall be given…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Mercantile Co. v. The Circular Advertising Co., 71 Fla. 522 (Fla. 1916)