MABELLE A. VAN ENGERS AND LOUIS VAN ENGERS, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
HICKORY HOUSE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
On remand after the appellate court found a genuine issue of material fact on a previous appeal, the trial court refused to use language directly from the appellate opinion in its jury charge. The appellate court affirmed, holding that trial courts are not required to use specific language from appellate opinions, only to adequately cover the applicable legal principles.
A trial court is not required to use specific language from an appellate opinion in its jury charge. The court need only properly instruct the jury on the law of the case as it applies to the evidence, and the principles of law applicable to the evidence were adequately covered in the charge given.
“The use of any given language in an opinion is not sufficient to require the use of that language by a trial court in its charge upon a subsequent trial of the same case.”
Establishes the core holding that appellate language is not mandatory in jury instructions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Van Engers had previously appealed a summary judgment in their case against Hickory House, Inc. On remand for trial, they requested a jury charge …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Law Of The Case Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
This case was previously before this court.1 At that time we found, upon an appeal from a summary final judgment, that a genuine issue of material fact existed and returned the cause for trial. At the conclusion of the trial the plaintiff .requested a charge which was an exact quotation from the opinion of this court upon the appeal. The charge was refused and upon delivery of an adverse verdict and entry of judgment thereon, the plaintiffs appealed. They urge that the refusal of a charge embracing the law as declared in a former appeal .constitutes .reversible error.
The use of any given language in an opinion is not sufficient to require the use of that language by a trial court in its charge upon a subsequent trial of the same case. Alford v. Cochran, 189 Or. 24, 216 P.2d 667, 669; News Leader Co. v. Kocen, 173 Va. 95, 3 S.E.2d 385, 391, 122 A.L.R. 842; cf. Davis v. Cain, 86 Fla. 18, 97 So. 305; Florida Ry. Co. v. Dorsey, 59 Fla. 260, 52 So. 963. A jury is properly instructed upon the law of the case as it applies to the evidence. The need for instruction is determined by the issues liti-
*658gated. The opinions of appellate courts necessarily employ legal terms not always generally understood. Their purpose is to define. Instructions have the broader purpose of aiding the jury in their understanding of the case.
An examination of the entire charge in the instant case discloses that the principles of law applicable to the evidence were adequately covered in the particular to which our attention is directed by the assignment of error.
Affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and MILLEDGE, STANLEY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ames v. Provident Life & Accident Ins., 942 F. Supp. 551 (S.D. Fla. 1994)…ns of appellate courts necessarily employ legal terms not always generally understood. Their purpose is to define. Instructions have the broader purpose of aiding the jury in their understanding of the case. Van Engers v. Hickory House, Inc., 118 So.2d 657, 657-58 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1960). 3 . The Court notes that Dr. Ames did not move specifically for new trial on the unjust enrichment count in his Alternative Motion for New Trial. He did, however, move generally for new trial on all issues (Alter…
Authorities Cited
- The Fla. Ry. Co. v. Dorsey, 59 Fla. 260 (Fla. 1910)
- Davis v. Cain, 86 Fla. 18 (Fla. 1923)
- Mabelle A. VAN Engers and Louis Van Engers v. Hickory House, Inc., 104 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)