F. T. NEWTON, ET AL.,
v.
HUSTON B. WALL
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 affirmed a jury's award of damages for breach of an oral employment contract, finding sufficient evidence to establish a 90-day hiring period. The case hinged on conflicting testimony from the two parties present during the contract negotiation.
Yes, the jury found sufficient evidence to establish a ninety-day hiring period, and the appellate court affirmed this finding.
“The sole question presented here is VÍ2;: "Is there evidence in the record sufficient to establish a hiring of plaintiff by defendants for a specific period of ninety days?"”
This quote states the central legal issue on appeal.
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 sued for damages resulting from the breach of an oral employment contract. The central dispute was whether the contract specified a dura…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a judgment awarding damages for the breach of an oral contract of employment. The sole question presented here is VÍ2;:
“Is there evidence in the record sufficient to establish a hiring of plaintiff by defendants for a specific period of ninety days?”
The testimony shows that only two persons were present when the alleged agreement for ninety day employment was made. They are the opposing parties *511here. Plaintiff in Error, Glenn, testified that no such term was incorporated into the oral contract of employment; defendant in error stated that it was expressly agreed between them. The jury found for the latter.
From the record, therefore, it appears that the question posed must be answered in the affirmative and the judgment appealed from is—
Affirmed.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.