RANDY V. COKER, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Tuttle/White Constructors, Inc. v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 385 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
  …for dismissal of Montgomery’s claim at the close of plaintiff’s case, contending that no prima facie case for recovery had been established, because the proof established untimely performance by Montgomery. Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. K. M. A., Inc., 349 So. 2d 846 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). We believe there was sufficient evidence before the trial court for denial of this motion, particularly since the subcontract between the parties provided for the contingency of late performance in the following proviso in ¶ SECON…
• Hardcastle v. Mohr, 483 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
  …Since Mohr did not establish a prima facie case that he had complied with the notice requirement, it was incumbent on the trial judge to render judgment on the merits for the defendant sheriff. See Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Florida v. K.M.A., Inc., 349 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). At this point, it was too late in the proceedings for Mohr to rectify his error of having failed to show compliance. See City of Miami Beach v. O’Hara, 166 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 172 So. 2d 597 (Fla.1965).…
• Midland-Guardian Co. v. Hagin, 370 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
  …lso contends that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing it to reopen its case to introduce the note, retail installment contract, and assignment. In support of the trial court appellees cite Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. K. M. A., Inc., 349 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), where we held the circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity, erred in remanding a case to the county court to allow a plaintiff to introduce additional evidence to make its case. We think appellees’ reliance upon Canada Dry…

Authorities Cited

• Huckelbury v. State, 337 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)