467 So. 2d 465 - Smith v. Dunning

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2016

15 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Clinton E. Foster and Richard D. Ogburn, Panama City, for appellant.

¶2Joseph L. Hammons, of Hammons, Roark & Whittaker, Pensacola, for appellees.

¶3SHIVERS, Judge.

¶4W.L. Smith appeals final judgment in favor of appellees Dunning and Calliham. Dunning and Calliham cross-appeal because the trial court denied their motion for prejudgment interest.

¶5We find no reversible error and conclude there is substantial competent evidence to sustain the jury's general verdict of $30,500 in favor of appellees.

¶6The complaint is in several counts. Since the verdict is a general one, we are unable to determine what portion of the damages, if any, the jury allocated to wrongful eviction which is grounded in tort. See 34 Fla.Jur.2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 165. In actions on tortious claims interest cannot be allowed before entry of judgment because the amount and measure of damages is largely discretionary with the jury, and the damages are, in consequence, unliquidated until the trial. See 32 Fla. Jur.2d, Interest and Usury, § 7.

¶7AFFIRMED.

¶8SMITH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.