MARTIN D. VONZAMFT, APPELLANT,
v.
JAY MORTON, 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.
This case involves an appeal from a judgment on a counterclaim after the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint. The appellant argued he was denied his day in court because the trial court denied his request for an adjournment on the final day of the trial.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the adjournment request because the appellant had full notice of the adjourned session and his absence was due to business commitments.
“Under rthese conditions, where the appellant, counter-defendant, had full notice of the adjourned session of the trial, no abuse of discretion has been made to appear.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for denying the adjournment request.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial was partially completed and the court reserved an entire day for its conclusion. On the concluding day, the appellant's attorney announced t…
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 Counterclaim cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a judgment on a counterclaim after the plaintiff had been .granted a voluntary dismissal of his complaint. The plaintiff on this appeal urges that he did not receive his day in court because the court denied an adjournment ■on the last day of the trial.
The trial was before the court without a jury. The trial had been partially completed at a prior date. The court had reserved the entire day for the completion •of the trial. At the time the concluding day of trial was called, the appellant, -through his attorney, announced that he •could not proceed because “Mr. VonZamft has been in New York all week and was rtnable to get back by reason of business -commitments holding him there.” Under rthese conditions, where the appellant, counter-defendant, had full notice of the adjourned session of the trial, no abuse of discretion has been made to appear. Maistrosky v. Harvey, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 103. The question of due process is not presented. See Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427, 21 S.Ct. 836, 45 L.Ed. 1165 (1901). Appellant has presented two additional points addressed to the sufficiency of the evidence and the scope of cross examination. The record reveals no reversible error in these particulars.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradney v. State, 197 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1967)…ERVIN, Justice (dissenting) : We were petitioned to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in 185 So. 2d 726. The defendant (Petitioner here) was charged with, and found guilty by a jury of the crime of simple robbery. He was sentenced to serve a term of fifteen years. In affirming the trial court, the District Court stated the Petitioner used a gun in the…
Authorities Cited
- Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1901)
- Maistrosky v. Harvey, 133 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)