Safe-T-Lawn, Inc. v. Agricultural Engineering Ass'n

4 Citing cases

  1. R & W Farm Equipment Co. v. Fiat Credit Corp.

    466 So. 2d 407 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 2 times
    Reversing where initial discovery responses “addressed only the preparation of the initial documents, whereas the subsequent affidavit avers circumstances relating to the redrafted documents”

    The trial court was thus entitled to consider the affidavit pursuant to § 90.803(6)(a), Florida Statutes. See Safe-T-Lawn Inc. v. Agricultural Engineering Assoc., 235 So.2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Fiat filed a motion for summary judgment, whereupon appellants presented an affidavit in opposition, stating that although R W's sales agent prepared the initial documents, incorrect finance information necessitated new documents which were prepared with the assistance of Fiat's agent.

  2. Adler v. Seligman of Florida, Inc.

    438 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 5 times

    The evidence presented in support of this element of damage was merely an estimate rather than the actual cost figure. We reverse on the authority of Safe-T-Lawn, Inc. v. Agricultural Engineering Association, 235 So.2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). POINTS II AND III.

  3. Golson v. State

    270 So. 2d 36 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 1 times

    In the trial Court and here the State relies upon the discretion reposed in the trial Court as to whether "the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission", citing as authority cases wherein it has been held that the refusal to admit such comparable evidence "failed to show an abuse" of such discretion. Safe-T-Lawn, Inc. v. Agricultural Engineering Ass'n., Fla.App. 1970, 235 So.2d 25; Brevard County v. Jacks, Fla.App. 1970, 238 So.2d 156; Mastan Co. v. American Custom Homes, Inc., Fla.App. 1968, 214 So.2d 103. But the cases consistently emphasize, in construing the UBREA, F.S. § 92.36, F.S.A., that the conditions set forth in the statute qualifying such business records for admission as evidence are mandatory and must be met, otherwise the records are inadmissible.

  4. DADE LINEN FURNITURE v. BUCKLEY DEV

    244 So. 2d 562 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)

    We have carefully examined and considered the record, briefs and argument of counsel and have concluded that the trial court's findings and holdings complained of are fully supported in law and fact and that no reversible error has been demonstrated. See Safe-T-Lawn, Inc. v. Agricultural Engineering Association, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So.2d 25, 26-27. We note also that a reviewing court will not upset findings of fact by the trial court sitting as the finder of the facts where such findings are based upon competent substantial evidence.