Frank J. Rooney, Inc. v. Huling, 313 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Frank J. Rooney, Inc. v. Huling, 313 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Microclimate Sales Co., Inc. v. Doherty (fladistctapp, 1999-05-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Microclimate Sales Co., Inc. v. Doherty (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Department of Trans. v. Powell, 721 So.2d 795, 797-98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bernstein v. Dwork, 320 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Sall v. Luxenberg, 313 So.2d 775, 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
discussed Cited "see" Valliappan v. Cruz
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sall v. Luxenberg, 313 So.2d 775, 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (holding it was an abuse of discretion to separate trials where issues were "entwined and intermingled").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FRANK J. ROONEY, INC., a Florida Corporation
v.
George L. HULING, d/b/a Libra Enterprises
No. 73-1479.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 9, 1975.
313 So. 2d 775
James E. Glass, Miami, for appellant., Linton S. Waterhouse, Orlando, and James E. Foster of Fishback, Davis, Dominick & Simonet, Orlando, for appellee.
Cross, Lewis, Royce, Walden.
Published

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CROSS, J., and LEWIS, ROYCE R., Associate Judge, concur. WALDEN, J., dissents with opinion.

Dissent

WALDEN, Judge

(dissenting):

It is my conviction that the judgment should be reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for defendant, Frank J. Rooney, Inc.

Just in sum, it is my view that two reversible errors were committed:

First, the trial court, under the proofs and law, erred when it denied the defendant’s Motion For Directed Verdict. Plaintiff did not prove a persistent refusal to pay an installment and plaintiff did not prove an inability or determination by defendant not to pay an installment when the installment was not specifically due on a date certain and, in the interim, the plaintiff had terminated performance.

Second, the trial court erred in awarding interest to plaintiff after the return of the jury verdict. Plaintiff did not prove or claim interest as an element of damages. The jury did not return a verdict for interest and it in no way indicated an intention to include interest in its verdict.

I respectfully dissent.