pm usa motion (Florida) · Go Syfert
← Florida issues

pm usa motion in Florida

5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2023 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Nitv, L.L.C. v. Bakergreen
fladistctapp · 2011 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012PM USA argues that Naugle did not prove reliance, and in any event, her claims are barred by the statute of repose. “[A] trial court should direct a verdict against the plaintiff only if there is no evidence, or reasonable inferences therefrom, upon which a jury may find for the nonmoving party.” NITV, L.L.C. v. Baker, 61 So.3d 1249, 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citation omitted).

2012PM USA argues that Naugle did not prove reliance, and in any event, her claims are barred by the statute of repose. “[A] trial court should direct a verdict against the plaintiff only if there is no evidence, or reasonable inferences therefrom, upon which a jury may find for the nonmoving party.” NITV, L.L.C. v. Baker, 61 So.3d 1249, 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citation omitted).

22
Medina v. Peraltagreen
fladistctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023Addressing the trial court's denial of PM USA’s motion for directed verdict, and its post-trial motion for judgment in accordance with its earlier motion for directed verdict, we evaluate the record evidence in the light most favorable to Garcia as the non-moving party, and “[i]f there is conflicting evidence or if different reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence, then the issue is factual and should be submitted to the jury for resolution.” Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Eghbal, 54 So. 3d 525, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citations omitted); Medina v. Peralta, 802 So. 2d 376, 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2

2023Addressing the trial court's denial of PM USA’s motion for directed verdict, and its post-trial motion for judgment in accordance with its earlier motion for directed verdict, we evaluate the record evidence in the light most favorable to Garcia as the non-moving party, and “[i]f there is conflicting evidence or if different reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence, then the issue is factual and should be submitted to the jury for resolution.” Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Eghbal, 54 So. 3d 525, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citations omitted); Medina v. Peralta, 802 So. 2d 376, 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2

11
Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bellgreen
fla · 1980 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023The Florida Supreme Court in Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145, 146 (Fla. 1980), explained the test applied to review of a grant or denial of a motion for new trial: In reviewing this type of discretionary act of the trial court, the appellate court should apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge abused his [or her] discretion.

11
Miami-Dade County v. Eghbalgreen
fladistctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023Addressing the trial court's denial of PM USA’s motion for directed verdict, and its post-trial motion for judgment in accordance with its earlier motion for directed verdict, we evaluate the record evidence in the light most favorable to Garcia as the non-moving party, and “[i]f there is conflicting evidence or if different reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence, then the issue is factual and should be submitted to the jury for resolution.” Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Eghbal, 54 So. 3d 525, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citations omitted); Medina v. Peralta, 802 So. 2d 376, 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2

2023Addressing the trial court's denial of PM USA’s motion for directed verdict, and its post-trial motion for judgment in accordance with its earlier motion for directed verdict, we evaluate the record evidence in the light most favorable to Garcia as the non-moving party, and “[i]f there is conflicting evidence or if different reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence, then the issue is factual and should be submitted to the jury for resolution.” Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Eghbal, 54 So. 3d 525, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citations omitted); Medina v. Peralta, 802 So. 2d 376, 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2

11
Vick v. Baileygreen
fladistctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018While orders on motions to disqualify are reviewed for abuse of discretion, Florida courts recognize that disqualification of counsel “is an extraordinary remedy and should only be resorted to sparingly.” Manning v. Cooper, 981 So. 2d 668, 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Alexander v. Tandem Staffing Sols., Inc., 881 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)); see also Vick v. Bailey, 777 So. 2d 1005, 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

11
Alexander v. Tandem Staffing Solutionsgreen
fladistctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018While orders on motions to disqualify are reviewed for abuse of discretion, Florida courts recognize that disqualification of counsel “is an extraordinary remedy and should only be resorted to sparingly.” Manning v. Cooper, 981 So. 2d 668, 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Alexander v. Tandem Staffing Sols., Inc., 881 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)); see also Vick v. Bailey, 777 So. 2d 1005, 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

11
Manning v. Coopergreen
fladistctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018While orders on motions to disqualify are reviewed for abuse of discretion, Florida courts recognize that disqualification of counsel “is an extraordinary remedy and should only be resorted to sparingly.” Manning v. Cooper, 981 So. 2d 668, 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Alexander v. Tandem Staffing Sols., Inc., 881 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)); see also Vick v. Bailey, 777 So. 2d 1005, 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Berenson v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. green
fladistctapp · 2016
2 sentences

2018Id. at 951 .

2018Id. at 951 .

22018–2018
Blaustein v. Commodore Cruise Line, Ltd. neutral
fladistctapp · 1993
2 sentences

2023Addressing the trial court's denial of PM USA’s motion for directed verdict, and its post-trial motion for judgment in accordance with its earlier motion for directed verdict, we evaluate the record evidence in the light most favorable to Garcia as the non-moving party, and “[i]f there is conflicting evidence or if different reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence, then the issue is factual and should be submitted to the jury for resolution.” Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Eghbal, 54 So. 3d 525, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citations omitted); Medina v. Peralta, 802 So. 2d 376, 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2

2023Addressing the trial court's denial of PM USA’s motion for directed verdict, and its post-trial motion for judgment in accordance with its earlier motion for directed verdict, we evaluate the record evidence in the light most favorable to Garcia as the non-moving party, and “[i]f there is conflicting evidence or if different reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence, then the issue is factual and should be submitted to the jury for resolution.” Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Eghbal, 54 So. 3d 525, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (citations omitted); Medina v. Peralta, 802 So. 2d 376, 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2

12023–2023
Nissan Motor Corp. v. Orozco green
fladistctapp · 1992
1 sentence

2018DAMOORGIAN, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. * * * 2 Nissan is distinguishable from the instant case, as the attorney in Nissan “handled rather routine and perfunctory assignments as a junior associate” and “never acquired confidential and other protected information during his former employment.” Nissan Motor Corp., 595 So. 2d at 241 (quoting the trial court’s order in that case). 6

12018–2018

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check