KENNEDY & COHEN, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLEN APPLIANCE SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ARTHUR DASH, APPELLEES
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 court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment or dismissing the case for failure to comply with discovery orders.
Plaintiff sued a corporation and an individual. The trial court granted summary judgment against the corporation and dismissed the case against the in…
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 Ratification cases and more on FLexlaw
By these consolidated appeals the appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse summary judgment in favor of the appellee, Allen Appliance Service, Inc., and an adverse final order of dismissal as to the individual appellee, Arthur Dash, which order was based on the failure of the plaintiff to comply with a prior order to produce certain documents. We affirm.
Viewing the record in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, it does not appear that it can recover against the corporate appellee upon the theory of agency, because the complained of accounts of the agent were not within the scope of his employment, were not authorized by the principal, and the facts failed to establish ratification. Varnes v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, 80 Fla. 624, 86 So. 433; Ocala National Farm Loan Association v. Munroe and Chambliss National Bank, 89 Fla. 242, 103 So. 609; Smith v. Texas Company, 111 Fla. 762, 149 So. 585; Reece v. Ebersbach, 152 Fla. 763, 9 So.2d 805; Ball v. Yates, 158 Fla. 521, 29 So.2d 729.
A trial judge has broad discretion in matters relating to discovery. Carson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App. 1965, 173 So.2d 743; Parker v. Parker, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 498, 499; Orlowitz v. Orlowitz, Fla. 1967, 199 So.2d 97. Measuring the order to produce in light of this principle, we fail to find that the order to produce in the instant case was erroneous and, therefore, the plaintiff having elected not to comply with same the trial judge was certainly correct in dismissing the cause. Surrency v. Winn & Lovett Grocery Co., 160 Fla. 294, 34 So.2d 564; Rashard v. Cappiali, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 581; Warriner v. Ferraro, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 723; Rule 1.380(b) (2) (iii); Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, the matters here under review in the several appeals are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taco Bell OF California v. Zappone, 324 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…within the scope of his actual or apparent authority, and not specifically authorized or ratified by Taco Bell, then there would be no liability to Taco Bell as a principal. Kennedy and Cohen, Inc. v. Allen Appliance Service, Inc., Fla.App.3d 1968, 214 So. 2d 488. And where, as here, the evidence showed that Radford was an agent with certain actual authority, but the scope of his apparent authority was in dispute, it was critical for the triers of fact to have the opportunity to make its own finding on this…
-
In re Est. of Ann v. Dalton, 246 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…z v. Orlowitz, Fla.1967, 199 So. 2d 97; Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 551; Certain Underwriters, Etc. v. Hawthorne Flying Serv., Fla. 1953, 63 So. 2d 308; Kennedy and Cohen, Inc. v. Allen Appliance Service, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 488; and Girten v. Bouvier, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 745. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in the denial of the motions to produce. Error is claimed by the exclusion from evidence of testimony of an expert witness to the effect that t…
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Chadderton, 306 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…failure to so abide. Warriner v. Ferraro, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 723. The sanction of dismissal is made available in discovery matters within the broad discretion of the court. Kennedy & Cohen, Inc. v. Allen Appliance Service, Inc., Fla.App. 1968, 214 So. 2d 488; Rule 1.380(b)(2)(C), RCP. Upon exercise of' the court’s discretionary authority to sanction, as in the case sub judice, the successor judge was without authority to set aside that order. The general rule is that a successor judge cannot review, mo…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Ball v. Yates, 158 Fla. 521 (Fla. 1946)
- Rashard v. Cappiali, 171 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Orlowitz v. Ellis K. Orlowitz, 199 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1967)
- Parker v. Parker, 182 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Warriner v. Ferraro, 177 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Surrency v. Winn & Lovett Grocery Co., 160 Fla. 294 (Fla. 1948)
- Varnes v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 80 Fla. 624 (Fla. 1920)
- Carson v. The City OF Fort Lauderdale, 173 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Cap. Fin. Corp. v. Giles, 111 Fla. 527 (Fla. 1933)
- Smith v. Tex. Co., 111 Fla. 762 (Fla. 1933)