Legal Opinion

Hayden, Stone Inc. v. Echteld

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 18, 1972No. 72-159PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

We reverse the directed verdict entered in favor of defendant and remand for a new trial.

The procedure and criterion to be employed in considering a motion for a directed verdict are well known. 32 Fla.Jur., Trial, §§ 91-98 (1960); Little v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., Fla.App. 1970, 234 So. 2d 132; Jones v. Hoffman, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 76; Williams v. Dade County, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 776; Hurst v. Krinzman, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 333. When the evidence here is considered in that light, we feel that the trial court erred as there can be gleaned evidence and inferences in favor of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Little v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1970
  2. Hurst v. KrinzmanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1970
  3. Jones v. HoffmanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1970
  4. Williams v. Dade CountyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1970

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Simon v. PopeDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1973
  2. Rolly Marine Service, Inc. v. SullivanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API