H. B.'S ENTERPRISES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND BAY COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in an eminent domain proceeding. The appellant sought to overturn the compensation awarded for land taken, arguing insufficient evidence for the jury's valuation and improper jury conduct. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the verdict supported by evidence and no prejudicial harm from alleged jury misconduct.
Yes, the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence, and no prejudicial harm resulted from the alleged improper jury conduct. The appellate court found the jury was within its province to accept or reject testimony regarding business damage.
“Upon examination of the testimony of the witnesses we find that the jury verdict is not without foundation in the evidence.”
Establishes the court's finding that the jury's decision was supported by evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceH. B.'s Enterprises, Inc. (appellant) was involved in eminent domain proceedings where the State Road Department of Florida took its land. A jury awar…
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 Opinion Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal appellant is seeking reversal of a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding that it is entitled to $7,725.00 as just compensation for land taken in eminent domain proceedings. Upon examination of the testimony of the witnesses we find that the jury verdict is not without foundation in the evidence. It was within the province of the jury to accept or reject the somewhat speculative and vague testimony of appellant’s witnesses as to their opinion on the business damage to appellant’s remaining land. Appellant also asserts that there was improper behavior on the part of the jury when they went to view the property. There is nothing in the record on appeal to substantiate the claim that appellant suffered any prejudicial harm due to the alleged improper acts on the part of the jurors. It is our conclusion that the trial judge did not err in denying appellant’s motion for new trial and we hereby affirm the judgment appealed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.