JOSEPH J. CURLEY, PETITIONER,
v.
MIAMI TRANSIT COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND HENDERSON'S PORTION PAK, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Petitioner Curley sought review of a circuit court order transferring his personal injury suit to Civil Court of Record, arguing the transfer was improper. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that the circuit judge erred by determining at the close of plaintiff's case that the evidence did not justify a jury verdict within the circuit court's jurisdictional limits, effectively usurping the jury's fact-finding role.
The circuit court erred in transferring the case. The judge improperly usurped the jury's exclusive function by determining that a reasonable jury would not believe the plaintiff's uncontradicted testimony and thus conclude that the amount in controversy was below the circuit court's jurisdictional threshold. Jurisdictional amount determinations must be based on the amount claimed and put into controversy in good faith, not the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility.
“Where jurisdiction is dependent on the amount involved in the case, the question turns not upon the amount claimed or the amount actually recoverable, but the test is the amount claimed and put into controversy in good faith.”
Establishes the proper test for determining whether a case falls within a court's jurisdictional limits based on amount in controversy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Curley brought a personal injury action against Miami Transit Company and Henderson's Portion Pak, Inc. in circuit court. At the conclusion of …
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 Good Faith Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
Joseph J. Curley, petitioner, seeks review by certiorari of an order of the circuit court transferring petitioner’s personal injury suit to the Civil Court of Record. The respondents, Miami Transit Company and Henderson’s Portion Pak, Inc., were defendants in the trial court. The order transferring the case to the Civil.Court of Record in and for Dade County was made by the circuit judge upon the oral motion of the defendant, Miami Transit Company. The motion was made at the conclusion of plaintiff-petitioner’s case.
*300The defendant-respondent, Henderson’s Portion Pak, Inc., did not join in the motion, but the order of the circuit court, of course, transferred the entire proceeding to the Civil Court of Record. The order sets forth the basis for the transfer. It is as follows:
“2. That this Court finds the proofs submitted by the plaintiff did not justify a verdict by the jury within the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court and this cause be, and the same is hereby transferred to the Civil Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, for further proceedings.”
The circuit court has original jurisdiction in all actions at law not cognizable by inferior courts. Article V, § 6, Florida Constitution, F.S.A. The Civil Court of Record of Dade County has jurisdiction of actions at law where the matter in controversy does not exceed, exclusive of interest and cost, the sum of $5,000. Section 33.14, Fla. Stat., F.S.A.
Where jurisdiction is dependent on the amount involved in the case, the question turns not upon the amount claimed or the amount actually recoverable, but the test is the amount claimed and put into controversy in good faith. Richter Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Harrison, 147 Fla. 732, 3 So.2d 387; Gannett v. King, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 299.
The determination of the trial judge that the proofs submitted by the plaintiff did not justify a verdict by the jury within the minimal jurisdictional limits of the circuit court had to be based perforce on his judgment that the plaintiff was not truthful in his testimony and thus did not claim the amount in controversy in good faith. We hold that this record does not preclude a jury of reasonable men from deciding otherwise. The plaintiff’s evidence was uncontradicted at the close of his case. Even if contradicted, the weight of the evidence is exclusively for the jury. Daniel v. Rogers, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 391; Goff v. Miami Transit Company, Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 636; Massaline v. Rich, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 10.
Having undertaken the trial the circuit judge erroneously determined that a jury would not believe the plaintiff and his witnesses. Cf. Willscott, Inc. v. Ullman, Fla. App.1960, 117 So.2d 856. The writ is granted, the order transferring the cause is quashed, and the cause is remanded for trial.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. v. Lambert, 334 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…n of the court is to be determined by the sum in good faith claimed or put into controversy when the action is commenced, and not by the amount of recovery. Tantillo v. Mileman, Fla.1956, 87 So. 2d 413; Curley v. Miami Transit Company, Fla.App.1962, 141 So. 2d 299; Castellano v. Bader Bros. Van Lines, Inc., Fla.App. 1968, 208 So. 2d 842. There is nothing in the record herein showing the demands of the plaintiffs herein were not made in good faith; thus it was not error to deny the appellants’ motion to transf…
-
Rocco v. Coffey, 163 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…685, and Willscott, Inc. v. Ullman, Fla.App.1960, 117 So. 2d 856, are helpful in a determination of “the amount in good faith demanded.” The amount actually recoverable in this case is a jury question, Curley v. Miami Transit Company, Fla.App.1962, 141 So. 2d 299, and on this record a jury might well find that plaintiffs’ damages exceed the minimum jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. It therefore appearing that the learned trial judge failed in this instance to follow the essential requirements of law, the w…
-
Mass. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Johansen, 270 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…nd put into controversy in good faith. Richter Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Harrison, 147 Fla. 732, 3 So. 2d 387; Brailmont v. Goetz, Fla.App.1970, 240 So. 2d 818; Gannett v. King, Fla.App.1959, 108 So. 2d 299; Curley v. Miami Transit Company, Fla.App.1962, 141 So. 2d 299; Castellano v. Bader Bros. Van Lines, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 842. Nothing in the record on appeal shows that plaintiff did not initially make his demand in good faith, although it may have developed on the trial of the cause that the amount recove…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richter Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Mrs. Clara Harrison, 147 Fla. 732 (Fla. 1941)
- Ada Gannett v. William F. King et ux., 108 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Daniel v. Rogers, 72 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1954)
- Massaline v. Rich, 137 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Goff v. Miami Transit Co., 77 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1955)
- Willscott, Inc. v. Isidor Ullman and Yetta Ullman, 117 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)