Houchins v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.

28 Citing cases

  1. Pennington v. State

    Case No. 5D11-1831 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sep. 21, 2012)

    The proscription of Russ continues today. Pennell v. Keene Bros. Trucking, Inc., 589 So. 2d 965, 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), quashed on other grounds, 614 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1993); Snook v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 485 So. 2d 496, 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) ("A juror is not permitted to become a witness in the jury room by importing his knowledge to other jurors."); Houchins v. Fla. E. Coast Ry., 388 So. 2d 1287, 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) ("While a juror is not required to disabuse his mind of knowledge about the place where the accident occurred, he is not permitted to become a witness in the jury room by imparting such knowledge to other jurors."); Edelstein v. Roskin, 356 So. 2d 38, 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) ("There is no doubt that in evaluating the evidence, the jury should confine its considerations to the facts in evidence as weighed and interpreted in the light of common knowledge. Jurors must not act on special or independent facts which were not received in evidence."). The State answers that pursuant to section 90.607(2)(b), Florida Statutes, the juror's mistaken belief inhered in the verdict and could not be made the subject of judicial scrutiny.

  2. Butler v. Butler

    866 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that, since the parties last resided together with the intent to be married in Brevard County as the last place where an intact marriage existed, then wife is not entitled to elect to file in Broward County simply based on her statement of intent which is contrary to the manifest weight of the undisputed evidence that Brevard County was their "home"

    We recognize that the burden is upon Husband, as the party seeking a change of venue, to demonstrate the impropriety of Wife's selection. See Houchins v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 388 So.2d 1287, 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Nevertheless, here, Wife's reliance solely on her assertion in court that she intended to return to Broward in the future, taken alone, is not sufficient to overcome the contrary evidence. See Crawford v. Crawford, 415 So.2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (holding trial court is to look to where "the intact marriage was last evidenced by a continuing union of partners who intended to remain and to remain married").

  3. Sweat Transportation, Inc. v. Mena

    862 So. 2d 931 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

    PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Houchins v. Florida E. Coast Ry. Co., 388 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

  4. Foti v. Camejo

    812 So. 2d 507 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 2 times

    [3, 4] A plaintiff's choice of venue is presumptively correct, and the burden is upon the party seeking a change of venue to demonstrate the impropriety of the plaintiff's selection. See Houchins v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 388 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 3d BCA 1980). Even where venue is proper in more than one county, it is the plaintiff's right to select which county in which to pursue his or her cause of action.

  5. Rayman v. Langdon Asset Management

    745 So. 2d 426 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    "When venue is proper in more than one county, it is the plaintiff's choice where to file suit." McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. v. Valdes, 625 So.2d 1330, 1330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (citing Houchins v. Florida East Coast Ry., 388 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)). Therefore, since Langdon may bring the action for nonpayment of monies in Dade County, the entire complaint may be properly brought in Dade County.

  6. P.V. Holding Corp. v. Tenore

    721 So. 2d 430 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 9 times

    It is well established that where venue is proper in more than one county, the choice of forum rests with the plaintiff. See Taylor v. Dasilva, 401 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Houchins v. Florida E.C. Ry. Co., 388 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). However, while a plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to respect, that choice is not paramount. The plaintiff's venue privilege will not be honored where the convenience of the parties or witnesses, or the interests of justice, require the action to be transferred.

  7. R.C. Stor. One v. Strand Realty

    714 So. 2d 634 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to transfer case based on convenience of parties and witnesses as plaintiff's venue choice is presumptively correct and defendant did not meet burden of proving forum non conveniens where it only presented affidavits that were little more than laundry list of witnesses, their places of residence, and conclusory statements of inconvenience for them to travel to another county; affidavits failed to disclose any information as to necessity, relevance, or significance of evidence to be presented by these witnesses

    The plaintiff's venue choice is presumptively correct, and a defendant bears the burden to prove that a trial in the county in which the action was filed would work a substantial inconvenience to it, and to witnesses. See Houchins v. Florida E. Coast Ry. Co., 388 So.2d 1287, 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The affidavits in support of R.C.'s motion to transfer venue were little more than a laundry list of witnesses, their places of residence and the conclusory statement that it would be inconvenient for them to travel to Palm Beach County. The affidavits failed to disclose any information as to the necessity, relevance or significance of the evidence to be presented by these witnesses.

  8. Hyatt Corp. v. Howarth

    678 So. 2d 823 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 6 times

    It is true that the plaintiff's choice of venue must be given great initial weight and respect. See Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla. 1996), revised, 674 So.2d 86 (Fla. 1996); Houchins v. Florida E. Coast Ry., 388 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). But it is also well settled that, in the absence of a meaningful and significant relationship between the case and that jurisdiction, it is ordinarily appropriate that it be tried in the "locus of [its] operative facts" — Monroe County.

  9. Starita v. West Putnam Post 10164

    678 So. 2d 521 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

    . . . due to the complexity of the issues involved, the disputes regarding discovery, the fact that Judge Carven Angel has orders outstanding at this time, the fact that an appeal is currently pending on the Marion County case, and the fact that numerous pleadings were previously filed during the ten months it was litigated in Marion County, that the interests of justice are indeed better served by transferring this case back to Marion County. In Houchins v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 388 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), a plaintiff dismissed his action in Broward County and later filed in Dade County. The railroad filed a motion to change venue to Broward County and the motion was granted by the court. On appeal, the Third District reversed indicating that the railroad failed to show substantial inconvenience or undue expense.

  10. Government Employees Ins. v. Burns

    672 So. 2d 834 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 24 times
    Explaining that while the parties' residences are important, there must also be "a showing that the parties or witnesses will suffer substantial inconvenience or undue expense due to the chosen forum"

    It is well established that where venue is proper in more than one county, the choice of forum rests with a plaintiff and will not lightly be set aside. Taylor v. Dasilva, 401 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Houchins v. Florida E.C. Ry. Co., 388 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). A plaintiffs forum selection is presumptively correct, and in order to successfully challenge that selection, the burden is upon the defendant to show either substantial inconvenience or that undue expense requires a change for the convenience of the parties or witnesses. Hamm v. Ambassador Ins. Co., 456 So.2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Hu v. Crockett, 426 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Mann v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., 300 So.2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Requiring a defendant to meet the burden of showing there is a more convenient forum ensures the creation of record evidence supporting the transfer.