ANODYNE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLIED PLATING SUPPLIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 appellate court affirmed a judgment against the defendant, Anodyne, Inc., for services rendered. The court found no error in the trial court's decision to deny a mistrial when the defendant sought to terminate its attorney during the trial, as no continuance was requested.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a mistrial. It was within the trial judge's discretion to proceed with the trial, especially nearing its end, in the absence of a proper application for a continuance.
“In that situation, nearing the end of the trial, it was well within the discretion of the trial judge, in the absence of a proper and sufficient application for continuance, to require the trial to proceed.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for upholding the denial of the mistrial, emphasizing the trial judge's discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnodyne, Inc. (defendant) was sued by Allied Plating Supplies, Inc. (plaintiff) for services performed under an oral contract to design and supervise …
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 Breach Of Oral Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant appeals from an adverse judgment. Plain tiff sued to recover for services performed, alleging that by an oral contract it had been engaged to design and supervise the construction and equipping of a plant. In a 3-day trial before a jury a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $16,555 principal plus certain interest and costs. No error is demonstrated, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed. One contention made by appellant was that the court committed error by refusing to grant a mistrial when defendant sought to terminate the services of his attorney. During trial on the third day, defendant’s attorney presented to the court a letter from the president of defendant corporation expressing such intention. No application for continuance was made. The request made by defendant’s attorney was for a mistrial. In that situation, nearing the end of the trial, it was well within the discretion of the trial judge, in the absence of a proper and sufficient application for continuance, to require the trial to proceed. The motion for mistrial under those circumstances was inappropriate, and the order denying it was proper. The appellant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anodyne, Inc. v. Allied Plating Supplies, 156 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1963)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 149 So. 2d 866.…