Garlock, Inc. v. Harriman

6 Citing cases

  1. Munoz v. Dade County School Board

    692 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

    PER CURIAM. The final order dismissing the action because of alleged discovery violations by the plaintiffs is unjustified by the record and is therefore reversed for trial. Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1993); K K World Enter. v. Union Spol, ___ So.2d ___ (Fla. 3d DCA Case no. 96-2107, opinion filed, May 7, 1997); Garlock, Inc. v. Harriman, 665 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Florida Lime Growers, Inc. v. Bloomer Plastics, Inc., 665 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Gomez-Bonilla v. Apollo Ship Chandlers, Inc., 650 So.2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

  2. Snoozy v. United States Gypsum Co.

    695 So. 2d 767 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 5 times
    Holding zero-damages award inadequate because “substantial, undisputed, and unrebutted testimony” showed that deceased father “had a close relationship with his children, and that [the children] suffered a great loss as a result of their father's death”

    judgment should be entered against each party liable on the basis of that party's percentage of fault. . . . Clearly, the only means of determining a party's percentage of fault is to compare that party's percentage to all of the other entities who contributed to the accident, regardless of whether they have been or could have been joined as defendants.Fabre, 623 So.2d at 1185; Garlock, Inc. v. Harriman, 665 So.2d 1116, 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(quoting Fabre, 623 So.2d at 1185);A.W. Chesterton v. Fisher, 655 So.2d 170, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(quoting Fabre, 623 So.2d at 1185). In W.R. Grace Co.-Conn. v. Dougherty, 636 So.2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 645 So.2d 457 (Fla. 1994), the court stated that

  3. Yerrick v. Hogs Breath Saloon of Key West, Inc.

    680 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

    PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Garlock, Inc. v. Harriman, 665 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).

  4. U.S. Fire Ins. v. C C Beauty Sales

    674 So. 2d 169 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 14 times

    In short, this order striking pleadings and entering a default meets all the elements necessary to affirm such an order under Florida law and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion. See Commonwealth Federal Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Tubero, 569 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 1990); Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla. 1983); Davis Garden Estates, Inc. v. American Inv. Realty, Inc., 670 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Garlock, Inc. v. Harriman, 665 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Levine v. Del American Properties, Inc., 642 So.2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); AVD Enterprises, Inc. v. Network Sec. Acceptance Corp., 555 So.2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). It appears that U.S. Fire continued to object to the requested production on grounds that had been raised in the petition for writ of certiorari to this court.

  5. Davis Garden Est. v. Am. Inv. Real

    670 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

    Because of the defendant's repeated and contumacious violations of the trial court's discovery orders, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that it properly entered a default judgment against the defendant. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.380 (b)(2)(C); Garlock, Inc. v. Harriman, 665 So.2d 1116, 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that "[a] deliberate and contumacious disregard of the [trial] court's authority will justify application of this severest of sanctions," the striking of pleadings and/or the entering of a default for noncompliance with an order compelling discovery.) (citing Swindle v. Reid, 242 So.2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)); Ferrante v. Waters, 383 So.2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

  6. Southern Bell v. Dept. of Transp

    668 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 9 times
    Noting that absent appeal and reversal of judgment exonerating codefendant, defendant cannot seek contribution or place codefendant on verdict form to offset its liability

    If there is no such evidence, the defendant is not entitled to have the Fabre defendant placed on the verdict form. See Garlock, Inc. v. Harriman, 20 Fla.L.Weekly D2511, 1995 WL 675424 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 15, 1995), clarified, 665 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), ( citing W.R. Grace Co.-Conn. v. Dougherty, 636 So.2d 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)); W.R. Grace Co. v. Pyke, 661 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (same). Again, if the Fabre defendant is exonerated because there is no evidence of fault, that defendant does not go on the verdict form.