09 November

Sticky

Standard of Review for a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (“JNOV”)

A trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the (jury’s) verdict, which is also known as a “JNOV.” The verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The trial court entered the JNOV for the defendant prompting the plaintiff to appeal. Here is important legal analysis when appealing a JNOV: A JNOV order is reviewed de novo. Kopel v. Kopel, 229 So. 3d 812, 819 (Fla. 2017). In reviewing a JNOV, the appellate court must “view all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-movant, and, in the face of evidence, which is at odds or contradictory, all conflicts must...

27 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Business Judgment Rule Designed to Shield Directors from Personal Liability

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A recent case out of Florida’s Third District discussed the business judgment rule and ultra vires acts. Of importance, the Third District held that the business judgment rule was not required to be raised as an affirmative defense. Hence, the business judgment rule could be relied on notwithstanding a board/manager/director not raising it as an affirmative defense in a lawsuit asserted against them. The business judgment rule is a critical rule for anyone serving on a board to appreciate because it is designed to benefit them, i.e., to shield them for personal liability for their decisions. Without such a rule, who...

11 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Homestead Protection does Not Attach to Corporation (as Judgment Debtor Found Out!)

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

There are times where (potential) judgment debtors try to be way to crafty. And, guess what, it doesn’t always work! A recent case exemplifies this point. In DeJesus v. A.M.J.R.K. Corp., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D331a (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), a plaintiff sued a defendant corporation in a personal injury action. During the litigation, the defendant corporation transferred residential property it owned to its sole shareholder. This was done through a quitclaim deed and was obviously done as a down and dirty asset protection technique. Of course, the quitclaim deed lacked consideration and was defective – the transfer was invalid. The plaintiff...

13 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Trial Court / Judge Cannot Act as the Seventh Juror

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence

The trial judge cannot act as the seventh juror. What does this mean? Read on...

29 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Establishing Punitive Damages Against a Corporation

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

“In Florida, there are two methods for establishing a claim for punitive damages against a corporation: ‘(1) vicarious liability based on the willful and malicious actions of an employee with a finding of independent negligent conduct by the corporation; or (2) direct liability based on the willful and malicious actions of managing agents of the corporation.’" Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Electronic Funds Transfer Corp., 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1824e (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) In Wells Fargo Bank, a defendant bank was being sued for punitive damages. At the conclusion of the evidence, the defendant bank moved for a directed verdict as to the...

21 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Motion for Directed Verdict (or to Set Aside the Verdict) is an Important Trial Consideration

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence, Standard of Review

After the plaintiff puts on its case-in-chief, you, as the defendant, move for a directed verdict. (Check out this article too for more on directed verdicts.) The court denies the motion for a directed verdict. You put on your defense and then the case is submitted to the jury. The jury returns a verdict in favor the plaintiff. You then move to set aside the verdict (also called a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict). The trial court denies your motion and enters final judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict. You appeal the trial court’s denial of the motion for...

15 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Moving for a Directed Verdict and, then, a Motion to Set Aside the Verdict

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence

Moving for a directed verdict is a standard procedure in a jury trial. Simply put, after the plaintiff puts on its case-in-chief (evidence supporting its claims against the defendant), the defendant moves for a directed verdict stating that even assuming all of the evidence is true and undisputed, and all inferences relating to that evidence favor the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to prove its case as a matter of law and a jury cannot reasonably enter a verdict in favor of the plaintiff based on that evidence. See Wald v. Grainger, 64 So.3d 1201 (Fla. 2011); see also Etheredge v....

26 December

0 Comments

Sticky

A “Reasonable Time” Period does Exist

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A reasonable time period does exist. The recent case of New Leaf Assets, LLC v. Jefrue, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D2673a (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) exemplifies this point. In this case, an investment agreement was entered – investors invested money in exchange for a percentage of membership interests. The agreement contained an option that gave the investors the option to exchange their membership interest for a refund of their investment, and the refund was backed by a personal guaranty. The investors attempted to exercise the option two years later, but the company notified them that it re-invested the money. The investors filed a...

08 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Premise Liability Claims and Case Example of Slip on Uneven Floors

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

In premises liability cases, the plaintiff must show the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition on its premises, the defendant owed a duty to protect the plaintiff from the dangerous condition, the defendant breached that duty, there was a causal connection between the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's fall, and the plaintiff suffered damages as a result. “[A] business owner owes two ‘separate and distinct' duties to business invitees: ‘1) to warn of concealed dangers which are or should be known to the owner and which are unknown to the invitee and cannot be discovered through...

18 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Standard for Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

To invoke an appellate court's certiorari jurisdiction, [t]he petitioning party must demonstrate that the contested order constitutes (1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case[,] (3) that cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal. State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Sanders, 44 Fla.L.Weekly D1901a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) quoting Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So.3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (internal quotations omitted). This is the standard for a petition for writ of certiorari. An example of an appellate court granting a petition for writ of certiorari and quashing a trial court’s...

Search