Too downbeat, too dour?
If this were the movie Groundhog Day, I'm about midway through Phil Connor's nihilistic, damn-it-all-straight-to-hail phase:
Enough of that -- let's go, kiddos:
Big loss for some heavy-hitters in a per curiam reversal of a plaintiff's jury verdict.
Another slip-and-fall, another Publix victory:
We likewise conclude, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, that Publix Super Markets was not negligent and cannot be held liable.You can't get a redo if you miss appealing the final judgment the first time around.
If you dismiss without prejudice, the defendant is now the "prevailing party" for purposes of any fee-shifting statute (plus the court need not hold an evidentiary hearing)?
Did I read that right:
We affirm the trial court’s final judgment awarding attorney’s fees to appellees as “prevailing parties” pursuant to section 718.303(1),1 Florida Statutes (2008), following appellant’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The trial court properly followed Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 568 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1990), which established, as a general rule, that “when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action, the defendant is the prevailing party.” Id. at 919 (citing Stuart Plaza, Ltd. v. Atlantic Coast Dev. Corp., 493 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)).Ok I've had enough.
Let's try again tomorrow!