CAROLYN O'GRADY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
RONNIE LEWIS KORTIE ET AL., DEFENDANTS
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 court respectfully declines to answer the certified questions regarding damages and comparative negligence in a wrongful death action.
The trial court certified questions concerning damages and comparative negligence in a wrongful death action to the appellate court. Plaintiffs failed…
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 Elements Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 4.6, the trial court has certified to this court the question as to elements of damages, if any, that can be claimed on behalf of a minor child and the estate by a surviving spouse and the administratrix in a wrongful death action arising from an incident that occurred on March 29, 1972. A second question certified relates to the applicability of comparative negligence.
Plaintiffs failed to file a brief within 15 days after the instant certificate was filed, as contemplated by Fla.App.Rule 4.6(f). Defendants have filed an extensive brief citing nine Florida appellate decisions which they contend answer the foregoing questions. Thus, there appears to be controlling precedent in this state upon which a decision of the trial court could be based. The trial court, under Article V, Section 6, Florida Constitution, has the power to adjudicate the questions, the answers to which may be reviewed on appeal, if desired. Chapman v. Slaff, 101 So. 2d 413 (1 Fla.App. 1958).
In the exercise of its discretion, this court respectfully declines to answer the questions as certified. Pridgeon v. Folsom, 174 So. 2d 619 (1 Fla.App.1965).
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gilberto and Sandra Gamez v. First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 31 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…atisfaction of the judgment debt.” As this court has noted, “Supplementary proceedings are a creature of statute to aid a judgment creditor in discovering assets of the debtor which might be appropriated to satisfy the judgment.” Conrad v. McMechen, 338 So. 2d 1306, 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Cypress calls this court’s attention to In re Hinton, 378 B.R. 371 (M.D.Fla.2007), in which the court stated that a plain reading of section 56.29 makes it clear that the “court’s powers to help a judgment creditor obtain…
-
Nobles v. Ring Power Corp., 531 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ceed under section 56.29, but submitted the notice of taking deposition pursuant to Rule 1.560. Rule 1.560 “does not supplant the method provided by [section 56.29] for examination of a judgment debtor, rather it supplements it.” Conrad v. McMechen, 338 So. 2d 1306, 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), citing Wilde v. Wilde, 237 So. 2d 203, 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). In Conrad, the court noted that “appellee could have sought discovery pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.560 without necessarily being restricted to the county of app…
-
Yale Rudo v. Levin, 855 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…in Broward County when the domestication action was filed, it should not now be required to “chase” the petitioner to another county because he has moved in the interim. “Supplementary proceedings are a creature of statute.... ” Conrad v. McMechen, 338 So. 2d 1306, 1307 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The statute requires the appearance of the judgment debtor in the county of his residence. It neither prohibits the petitioner from moving nor requires his return in the event of a move. “The mandate of the statute is plai…
Authorities Cited
- Gertrude Chapman v. Slaff, 101 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Pridgeon v. Haywood Folsom, 174 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)