Case Name: GNB, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. UNITED DANCO BATTERIES, INC., f/k/a Danco Batteries, Inc., and Daniel K. Pernas, Appellees/Cross-Appellants
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-08-27
Citations: 627 So. 2d 492
Docket Number: No. 92-00073
Parties: GNB, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. UNITED DANCO BATTERIES, INC., f/k/a Danco Batteries, Inc., and Daniel K. Pernas, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Judges: RYDER, A.C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 627
Pages: 492–500

Head Matter:
GNB, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. UNITED DANCO BATTERIES, INC., f/k/a Danco Batteries, Inc., and Daniel K. Pernas, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
No. 92-00073.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Aug. 27, 1993.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1993.
Hugh N. Smith and David S. Nelson of Smith & Fuller, Tampa, and Michael E. Barry and Deena S. Newlander of Gardner, Carton & Douglas, Chicago, IL, for appellant/cross-appellee.
A. Lamar Matthews, Jr., Steven D. Hutton, and Martin Garcia of Matthews, Hutton & Eastmoore, Sarasota, for appellees/cross-appellants.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We find competent and substantial evidence in the record to support the jury's award to the appellee Danco on its counterclaim against the appellant GNB for tortious interference with advantageous business relationships. As an appellate court, it is not our function to reweigh the evidence but, rather, to view the record to determine if it contains competent and substantial evidence to support the conclusions of the trier of fact. Because such evidence exists in this case, we affirm. See Star Island Associates v. Lichter, 473 So.2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
While the dissent's explanation of the applicable law is entirely correct, its conclusion that GNB should have been awarded a directed verdict on Danco's counterclaim is based on a view of the evidence different from the view which we believe the jury was entitled to take. The dissent believes there was no evidence to support an essential element of the tort claim; we believe there was such evidence. Resolution of conflicts in the evidence and inferences therefrom was for the jury.
RYDER, A.C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
ALTENBERND, J., dissents with opinion.