Briscoe Enterprises Ltd. of Florida III v. Palm Beach County
BRISCOE ENTERPRISES LTD. OF FLORIDA III, Leonard E. Briscoe, the Leonard E. Briscoe Company of Texas, Inc., and Briscoe Management Company, Inc. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants argue that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of appellee on all counts of appellants’ amended counterclaim and on appellee’s claim on the promissory note in its third amended complaint. We agree and reverse.
A motion for directed verdict should be granted only when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows that a jury could not reasonably differ as to the existence of a material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Garrahan v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., 569 So.2d 518, 519 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Upon a review of the record, we conclude there was some evidence supporting each count of appellants’ counterclaim, as well as appellants’ defenses to the action on the note. We also find record evidence of damages that a jury could have accepted. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Our reversal of the directed verdict on the legal defenses and counterclaim necessarily requires that the fore *561 closure judgment also be reversed to abide the result in the new trial.
REVERSED.
GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., and MAY, MELANIE G., Associate Judge, concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.