HAROLD C. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• Coleman P. Houchins, Jr. v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 388 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
  …parties would result from a trial in Dade County, the forum chosen by Houchins, was simply not satisfied. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Florida Department of Transportation, 352 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Velez v. Mell D. Leonard & Associates, Inc., 338 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The trial court’s contrary finding is unsupported by the record. The fact that the incident occurred in Broward County makes venue proper there, but does not make Dade a forum non conveniens. When venue is proper in more than on…
• Domenico Loiaconi v. Gulf Stream Seafood, Inc., 830 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
  …sota County was sufficient to support venue in Sarasota County under section 47.061. See Foster v. Greco, 320 So. 2d 43, 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The right to initially select venue belongs to the plaintiff. Velez v. Mell D. Leonard & Assocs., Inc., 338 So. 2d 896, 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). It is the defen [*910] dant’s burden to plead and prove that venue is improper. Id. That burden is not met where a defendant files an unsworn motion and does not present affidavits or other sworn proof in support of the moti…
• Kuvin, Klingensmith & Lewis, P. A. v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 371 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
  …rimary witnesses. Moreover, there is no dispute that the legal services were rendered and that the cause of action sued upon therefore arose here. Under these circumstances, a change of venue is improper. Velez v. Mell D. Leonard & Associates, Inc., 338 So. 2d 896, 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) is determinative: “Finally, attempts by defendant to support the trial court’s ruling on the doctrine of ‘forum non conveniens’ under Section 47.122, Florida Statutes, are not persuasive. While it is apparent that defendant’…