TRIO TOWING SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND B. L. MCCOGLIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT E. MURRELL, 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.
In this appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed its own prior decision that had directed a verdict for the plaintiff, recognizing that in doing so it had violated the defendants' due process rights by denying them an opportunity to present their defense.
The court held that it erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff because doing so denied the defendants their day in court and an opportunity to present any defenses, violating due process and the rules of civil procedure.
[1] A court commits error by directing a verdict for a plaintiff without affording the defendants an opportunity to present their defenses.
[2] When a court reverses a directed verdict for defendants, the proper procedure is to return the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with due proce…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We candidly admit that after finding error in the directed verdict for the defendants in the earlier proceeding we made a mistake in directing the trial judge to direct a verdict for the plaintiff for both compensatory and punitive damages.”
The court acknowledges its error in the prior appeal by directing a verdict for the plaintiff rather than remanding for trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis is the second appeal in the same case. In the first trial, the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendants. On appeal, the appellate court …
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 Rules Of Civil Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter has been before this court previously. See: Murrell v. Trio Towing Service, Inc., Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 331, for the background and results of this decision, wherein we reversed the trial judge for directing a verdict for the defendants.
We candidly admit that after finding error in the directed verdict for the defendants in the earlier proceeding we made a mistake in directing the trial judge to direct a verdict for the plaintiff for both compensatory and punitive damages. This is so because we denied the defendants their day in court in that they never had an opportunity to present any defenses. Necessarily, for the proper determination of their motion for directed verdict, the defendants at the time of the first trial had to admit without contest all the evidence introduced and reasonable inferences therefrom in fav-or of the plaintiff, and this formed the basis of the factual statement set forth in the earlier opinion.
However, after we determined that the trial court erred in directing a.verdict for the defendants, we should have returned the matter to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the rules of civil procedure and ordinary due process. See : Ryan's Furniture Exchange, Inc. v. McNair, 120 Fla. 109, 162 So. 483; Pelle v. Diners Club, Fla.App.1974, 287 So. 2d 737; Carmichael v. Shelley Tractor & Equipment Company, Fla.App.1974, 300 So. 2d 298; Rule 1.480(a), R.C.P.
Therefore, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby reversed, and the matter is returned to the trial court for a new trial on all the issues as made by the pleadings.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.L. Williams v. Salem Free Will Baptist Church, 784 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…“[T]he [*1233] trial court erred in granting a directed verdict for [plaintiff] and in depriving [defendant] of the ability to present its case.... ‘[Doing] so would constitute a denial of due process of law.’ ”); Trio Towing Serv., Inc. v. Murrell, 325 So. 2d 21, 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (“[A]fter finding error in the directed verdict for the defendants in the earlier proceeding we made a mistake in directing the trial judge to direct a verdict for the plaintiff ... we should have returned the matter to the tr…
-
Surratt v. Hodges, 389 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…ial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants, we should have returned the matter to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the rules of civil procedure and ordinary due process. Trio Towing Service, Inc. v. Murrell, 325 So. 2d 21, 22 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). See also Peile v. Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). We reverse the judgment against Mr. Surratt and remand the case for a new trial.3 SCHEB, C. J., and RYDER, J., concur. . Procedurally, the court properly sust…
-
Loxahatchee River Env't Control Dist. v. L.A. Wilks, 475 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…t court should have remanded the case to the county court to permit the petitioner to refute the respondent’s prima facie case. Crystal River Enterprises, Inc. v. NASI, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Trio Towing Service, Inc. v. Murrell, 325 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Cape Coral Bank v. Kinney, 321 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Accordingly, we direct the circuit court to remand the action to the county court for a new trial. CERTIORARI GRANTED. HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ryan's Furniture Exch., Inc. v. McNair, 120 Fla. 109 (Fla. 1935)
- Pelle v. Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Waldo S. Carmichael v. Shelley Tractor & Equip. Co., 300 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Murrell v. Trio Towing Serv., Inc., 294 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)