TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Shalhub v. Andrews Roofing & Improvement Co.

Don S.E. SHALHUB v. ANDREWS ROOFING & IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation

Shalhub v. Andrews Roofing & Improvement Co., 530 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
September 6, 1988
Docket
No. 88-266
Judges
Barkdull, Jorgenson, Pearson
Citations
530 So. 2d 105213 Fla. L. Weekly 20931988 Fla. App. LEXIS 39641988 WL 91185
Cited by 4 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a complaint seeking damages for breach of contract in the negligent inspection of a residence the plaintiff was contemplating buying. There was a jury verdict for the plaintiff of $22,577.28. The trial court entered a remittitur down to $5,000. There was no provision for acceptance of the remittitur or a new trial on damages only. The appellant contends, first that the trial court should not have entered a remittitur. We find no error on this point. De la Vallina v. De la Vallina, 90 Fla. 905 , 107 So. 339 (1926); Cohen v. Margoa, Inc., 281 So.2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); .Section 768.74 Florida Statutes (1987).

The appellant secondly contends that the trial court erred in not giving him the option of accepting the remittitur or having a new trial limited to the issue of damages. We agree. Bom v. Goldstein, 450 So.2d 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Section 768.74 Florida Statutes (1987). Therefore, this cause is remanded to the trial court to enter an order giving the plaintiff therein a time certain to either accept the remittitur, or have a new trial on the issue of damages only.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →
1991: 22007: 12022: 119912026peak 1991 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. J.L. PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. TIMOTHY F. SCHNURR, as of the Estate of James V. Schnurr, and CHRISTINE SCHNURRNo. 19-3474 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2022)
  2. REGENCY LAKE APTS. ASSOCIATES, LTD. v. French590 So. 2d 970 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
  3. Broward County School Bd. v. Dombrosky579 So. 2d 748 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
  4. Olivas v. Peterson969 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

Most recent

  1. J.L. PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. TIMOTHY F. SCHNURR, as of the Estate of James V. Schnurr, and CHRISTINE SCHNURRNo. 19-3474 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2022)
  2. Olivas v. Peterson969 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
  3. REGENCY LAKE APTS. ASSOCIATES, LTD. v. French590 So. 2d 970 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
  4. Broward County School Bd. v. Dombrosky579 So. 2d 748 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
De La Vallina v. De La Vallina, 107 So. 339 (Fla. 1926) 32
Born v. Goldstein, 450 So. 2d 262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) 21
Cohen v. Margoa, Inc., 281 So. 2d 406 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list