JAMES H. GARRETT AND NORMA C. GARRETT, HIS WIFE; AND JAMES W. CAULK, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The First District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a trial court judgment, finding that the evidence presented in this case was factually distinguishable from a prior case relied upon by the appellants and more closely aligned with another precedent.
No, the evidence is not legally sufficient to warrant reversal because it is factually distinguishable from the precedent relied upon by the appellants and more closely aligns with a different controlling precedent.
“It is our view that the legal effect and probative force of the evidence in the case sub judice is factually distinguishable from that present in the case of Anderson v. State Road Department1 on which appellants rely for reversal.”
This quote establishes the court's primary reason for distinguishing the current case from the precedent cited by the appellants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants relied on the case of Anderson v. State Road Department for reversal. The court found the evidence in the current case to be factually …
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 Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause has been orally argued before the court and the briefs and record on appeal have been read and given full consideration. It is our view that the legal effect and probative force of the evidence in the case sub judice is factually distinguishable from that present in the case of Anderson v. State Road Department1 on which appellants rely for reversal. We are further of the view that the evidence in this case more nearly conforms with that present in the case of .State Road Department v. Falcon,2 and that our conclusion should be controlled by the decision rendered in that case. Appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the trial court hereby appealed is affirmed. •
WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. State Rd. Dep't, 204 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Falcon, Inc., 157 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)