FANNIE RIVERS, A WIDOW,
v.
CITY OF GAINESVILLE
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict for the defendant, holding that a trial court erred in directing a verdict when evidence existed from which a jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff. The court reaffirmed the principle that a defendant's motion for directed verdict admits all facts and favorable inferences from the plaintiff's evidence.
The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict because it cannot be said as a matter of law that no evidence was submitted upon which the jury could have lawfully found a verdict for the plaintiff. The issues made by the pleadings should have been submitted to the jury with proper jury instructions on the applicable law.
“It cannot be said as matter of law that there was no evidence submitted upon which the jury could have lawfully found a verdict for the plaintiff; therefore, the issues made by the pleadings should have been submitted to the jury upon proper charges as to the applicable law.”
States the holding that a directed verdict was improper when evidence existed supporting the plaintiff's case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFannie Rivers brought a civil action against the City of Gainesville. At the close of plaintiff's evidence and upon the defendant's motion, the trial …
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 Inferences From Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
For former decisions in this cause see Rivers v. City of Gainesville, 106 Fla. 267, 143 So. 235; 107 Fla. 774, 144 So. 481.
At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, and on motion, the Court directed a verdict for the defendant upon which judgment was rendered. The plaintiff took writ of error.
• The statute provides that “Upon the trial of all cases in the several courts of this State * * * if, after all the evidence shall have been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff in any civil case, * * * it is apparent to the judge * * * that no evidence has been Submitted upon which the jury could lawfully find a verdict for the palintiff in such civil case * * * the judge shall upon motion of the defendant direct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant.”
The evidence has been considered but it is not necessary to state it or to discuss its' legal effect.
It cannot be said as matter of law that there was no evidence submitted upon which the jury could have lawfully found a verdict for the plaintiff; therefore, the issues made by the pleadings should have been submitted to the jury upon proper charges as to the applicable law.
■ “A party moving for a directed verdict, admits not only the facts stated in the evidence adduced, but also admits every conclusion favorable to the adverse party that a jury might fairly and reasonably infer from the evidence. Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, 67 Fla. 40, 64 So. 435, H. N. 3.
See also German American Lumber Co. v. Brock, 55 Fla. 577, 46 So. 740; Gravette v. Turner, 77 Fla. 311, 81 So. 476; Wager v. East Coast Hospital Ass’n, 105 Fla. 547, 141 So. 743; Wolf v. City of Miami, 103 Fla. 774, 137 So. 892.
Reversed.
*604Davis, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Bird, 128 Fla. 552 (Fla. 1937)…is not yet reported. The opinion on the original hearing in the latter case appears in 173 So. 820. See also 3 Am. Jr. p. 705, et seq., 5 C. J. S. pp. 1477, 1547, 1548; and Gravette v. Turner, 77 Fla. 311, 81 So. 476; Rivers v. City of Gainesville, 115 Fla. 602, 155 So. 844; 13 Encyc. Dig. Fla. Reports, 305-313, and Baltimore & Carolina Line v. Redman, 295 U. S. 654, 79 L. Ed. 1636. Petition for rehearing denied. Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.…
-
City of Hollywood v. Bair, 136 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1938)…on here, in a degree, is subject to the criticism as made, we do not think it fails to state a cause of action. We base our conclusion on the following authorities: Rivers v. City of Gainesville, 106 Fla. 267, 143 So. 245, 107 Fla. 774, 144 So. 481; 115 Fla. 602, 155 So. 844; Williams v. City of Jacksonville, 118 Fla. 671, 160 So. 15; American Box & Lumber Co. v. Chandler, 102 Fla. 907, 138 So. 29, 122 Fla. 169, 165 So. 382; Kirkland v. City of Gainesville, 116 Fla. 319, 156 So. 601, 122 Fla. 765, 166 So. 4…
-
Lawrence Rogers (Intervenor below) v. Bandy, 132 Fla. 790 (Fla. 1938)…*793] “The Court has held that the Tax Collector, in office at the time of the issuance of the certificates, was entitled to his commission upon redemption or sale. Tyler v. Thomas, 114 Fla. 368, 153 Sou. 848; Gay, Clerk, v. State, ex rel. McKenney, 115 Fla. 602, 155 Sou. 845; Tyler v. Nobles, 117 Fla. 328, 161 Sou. 283; National Surety Corporation v. Sholtz, 123 Fla. 110, 166 Sou. 213. “It would be necessary to substitute the word ‘unless’ for ‘until’ to put the construction on that Chapter that if it was…
Authorities Cited
- Nell Gravette v. Turner, 77 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1919)
- Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, 67 Fla. 40 (Fla. 1914)
- German Am. Lumber Co. v. Brock, 55 Fla. 577 (Fla. 1908)
- Rivers v. City of Gainesville, 107 Fla. 774 (Fla. 1932)
- Wolfe v. City of Miami, 103 Fla. 774 (Fla. 1931)
- A. L. Sammons and his wife Mrs. Amelia B. Sammons v. Tr. Co. of Fla., 105 Fla. 547 (Fla. 1932)
- Vida Blanche Cole v. Cole, 106 Fla. 226 (Fla. 1932)