ROOSEVELT BLUE, APPELLANT,
v.
LUCIOUS WILLIAMS AND FLORIDA WHOLESALE DRUGS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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 District Court of Appeal, Third District, reversed a trial court's judgment for the defendant after a jury awarded the plaintiff zero dollars in damages. The appellate court held that entering a judgment for the defendant was an error when the jury found for the plaintiff, even with a zero-dollar award.
Yes, the trial court erred by entering a judgment for the defendant. A judgment should have been rendered for the plaintiff, and costs should have been taxed against the defendant.
“We, the Jury, find for the Plaintiff Roosevelt Blue and assess his damages in the sum of zero ($000.00) Dollars.”
This quote represents the jury's verdict in the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Roosevelt Blue, sued for negligence. The jury returned a verdict finding for the plaintiff but assessing his damages at zero dollars. B…
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 Taxation Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
Trial was held upon appellant-plaintiff’s complaint in negligence, and the jury returned the following verdict:
“We, the Jury, find for the Plaintiff Roosevelt Blue and assess his damages in the sum of zero ($000.00) Dollars.”
The transcript of the proceedings below is not before this court. However, the record on appeal indicates that upon this verdict, the trial judge entered a judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff brings this appeal.
This court has said that it is error to enter a judgment for the defendant upon a verdict for the plaintiff. Carroll v. Hertz Corporation, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 624. Consequently, a judgment should have been rendered for the plaintiff, and costs should have been taxed against the defendant pursuant to § 58.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Raffel v. Magarian, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 249.
The judgment appealed is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment upon the jury verdict for appellant as well as costs for such sums as the court shall find are legally taxable.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sunshine Bottling Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 757 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ment, and for that reason the only one entitled to recover its costs. See The Green Companies, Inc. v. Kendall Racquetball Investment, Ltd., 658 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Upson v. Hazelrig, 444 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Blue v. Williams, 200 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Raffel v. Magarian, 165 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). However, we find Sunshine is not entitled to attorneys’ fees because nothing in the parties’ agreement provides for prevailing party attorneys’ fees in the event of litigati…
-
Matthias J. Propst v. John A. Neily, D.O., 467 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…the requisite evidence. Propst also argues that one who prevails on the issue of liability is the prevailing party regardless of the amount of damages assessed. He relies on two cases for this proposition. We distinguish both. In Blue v. Williams, 200 So. 2d 626, 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), the jury found “for the Plaintiff ... and assessed] his damages in the sum of zero ... Dollars.” The Propst jury made no such finding of liability. In Raffel v. Magarian, 165 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), a summary judgment…
-
Tacher v. Mathews, 845 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…er section 57.041, Fla. Stat. (1995). Following oral argument before a three judge panel, we sua sponte reheard the case en banc to consider the intra-district conflict between Upson v. Hazelrig, 444 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), Blue v. Williams, 200 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), and Raffel v. Magarian, 165 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), all of which concluded that costs should go to the plaintiff under similar situations; and Militana v. Ladd, 605 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), which found that the defen…
Authorities Cited
- Emil J. Raffel v. Magarian, 165 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Nettie Pearl Carroll v. HERTZ Corp., 132 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)