Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Drexel Building v. Spadaro

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 14, 1981No. 80-588Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAnstead, Judge

I cannot agree with the holding of the majority that it was not error for the trial court to add an amount for interest to the jury’s verdict. In my view it was error for the trial court to add interest. My views are similar to those expressed in the case of Schulman v. Cort Aviation Corporation, 330 So.2d 114 (Fla.3d DCA 1976):

The arguments in the briefs dealt with the propriety of the inclusion of interest in the judgment as depending upon whether the indebtedness for which judgment was awarded was liquidated or un-liquidated.

We are relieved of the necessity to evaluate those opposing…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Shoup v. WaitsSupreme Court of Florida · 1926
  2. Bailey v. SwartzDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1957
  3. Wabash Fire and Casualty Insurance Company v. HollowayDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1962
  4. Fort Pierce Toyota, Inc. v. WolfDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1977
  5. Grayson v. FishloveDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1972

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API