Title: Dunn v. Shaw

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

303 So. 2d 6 (1974)
Howard M. DUNN and Sidney Zuker, Petitioners,
v.
Herman L. SHAW, Respondent.
No. 44889.

Supreme Court of Florida.
November 7, 1974.
Guy B. Bailey, Jr. of Pettigrew & Bailey, Miami, for petitioners.
Eric B. Meyers of Shutts & Bowen, Miami, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We have reviewed by writ of conflict certiorari the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in the case of Shaw v. Dunn (1973), 287 So. 2d 404, and find that conflict of decisions exists.
As reflected by the majority and dissenting opinions, we note that the majority of the District Court concluded that in the instant case the stock fraud was not
On the other hand, the dissenting opinion of Judge Barkdull states:
That a dissenting opinion of a district court may be considered in determining existence of conflict, see Commerce National Bank in Lake Worth v. Safeco Ins. Co. (Fla. 1973), 284 So. 2d 205.
Read together, the instant District Court opinions reflect the majority opinion conflicts with controlling decisions of this Court. Compare Barnett First Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville v. Buie (Fla. 1972), 266 So. 2d 657, following Winn and Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer (1936), 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214, and Adams v. Whitfield (Fla. 1974), 290 So. 2d 49.
*7 Taking into consideration the description of the stock fraud in Judge Barkdull's dissent, we are not impressed with the attempt of the majority to distinguish the instant case situation from our decisions cited just above. It appears to us the fraud or misrepresentation could have been malicious and outrageous and that the District Court characterization of such conduct to the contrary was an evidentiary conclusion that invaded the province of the jury. The jury under the trial judge's instructions was well within its province to find the stock fraud misrepresentation justified award of punitive damages.
Finding conflict as we do, the decision of the District Court is quashed with direction that on remand the judgment of the trial court be reinstated in full.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C.J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
BOYD, J., dissents.