Legal Opinion

Wolfe v. Smilack

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 17, 2012No. 4D11-3111PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the trial court’s finding of proper venue. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979). However, appellants’ demand for jury trial remained viable even after the pleading that contained it was stricken. See, e.g., Powell v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 448 So.2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The trial court erred in conducting a non-*167jury trial even after striking appellants’ pleadings because the plaintiff sought un-liquidated damages. See Kreiser Constr., Inc. v. Trafford, 699 So.2d 251, 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Landon v. Ralls, 661 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of TallahasseeSupreme Court of Florida · 1979
  2. Ansel v. KizerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
  3. Guirlinger v. Goldome Realty Credit Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
  4. Powell v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
  5. Kreiser Construction, Inc. v. TraffordDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Michael J. Wolfe and Doralba H. Wolfe v. Steven A. Smilack, P.A.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2015
  2. STUART B. YANOFSKY, ESQ. v. ANDREW ISAACSDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API